Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

This report includes the issuances received during the specified period from Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), the Directors` Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).

This report includes the issuances received during the specified period from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), the Directors` Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM). The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or have any independent legal significance.

This report includes the issuances received during the April 1996 reporting period from the Commission, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards, the Administrative Law Judges, the Directors` Decisions, and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking. Included are issuances pertaining to: (1) Yankee Nuclear Power Station, (2) Georgia Tech Research Reactor, (3) River Bend Station, (4) Millstone Unit 1, (5) Thermo-Lag fire barrier material, and (6) Louisiana Energy Services.

The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission Information Digest provides a summary of information about the US Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC), NRC's regulatory responsibilities, and the areas NRC licenses. This digest is a compilation of NRC-related data and is designed to provide a quick reference to major facts about the agency and the industry it regulates. In general, the data cover 1975 through 1990, with exceptions noted. For operating US commercial nuclear power reactors, information on generating capacity and average capacity factor is obtained from Monthly Operating Reports submitted to the NRC directly by the licensee. This information is reviewed for consistency only. No independent validation and/or verification is performed by the NRC. For detailed and complete information about tables and figures, refer to the source publications. This digest is published annually for the general use of the NRC staff and is available to the public. 30 figs., 12 tabs.

This document is a safety evaluation report regarding the application to renew the operating licenses for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, which was filed by the Florida Power and Light Company by letter dated September 8, 2000 and received by the NRC on September 11, 2000. The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has reviewed the Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, license renewal application for compliance with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal

(NRC) staff responses to frequently asked questions on the decommissioning process for commercial, nuclear power reactors. The questions were taken from a variety of sources over the past several years, including written inquiries to the NRC and questions asked at public meetings and during informal discussions with the NRC staff. In responding to the questions, the NRC staff attempted to provide the answers in a clear and non-technical form. With the increase in the number of power reactors beginning the decommissioning process and significant changes that occurred in the regulations since 1996, the staff realized that there was a general lack of understanding of the decommissioning process and the risks associated with decommissioning. This document was developed in response to the staffs concerns. The report contains a definition of decommissioning and a discussion of alternatives. It also provides a focus on decommissioning experiences in the United States and how the NRC regulates the decommissioning process. Questions related to spent fuel, low-level waste, and transportation related to decommissioning are answered. Questions related to license termination, the ultimate disposition of the facility, and finances for completing decommissioning and hazards associated with decommissioning are also addressed. This document also provides responses to questions related to public involvement in decommissioning as well as providing the public with sources for obtaining additional information on decommissioning.

This report presents the results of the independent certified public accountants` audit of the Federal Energy Regulatorycommission`s statements of financial position, and the related statements of operations and changes in net position. The auditors` work was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. An independent public accounting firm conducted the audit. The auditors` reports on the Commission`s internal control structure and compliance with laws and regulations disclosed no reportable conditions or instances of noncompliance.

and the Federal Reliability and the Federal and the Federal Reliability and the Federal Energy Regulatory Energy RegulatoryCommissionCommission Michael Peters Michael Peters Energy Infrastructure & Cyber Security Advisor Energy Infrastructure & Cyber Security Advisor Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission 202 202 - - 502 502 - - 8461 8461 Michael.Peters@FERC.GOV Michael.Peters@FERC.GOV The views expressed in this The views expressed in this presentation do not represent the presentation do not represent the views of the Federal Energy views of the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission or the United RegulatoryCommission or the United States. States. These views are the personal opinion These views are the personal opinion of Mike Peters!!!! of Mike Peters!!!! âș âș âș âș âș âș

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (Commission) is amending its regulations in accordance with section 311(d) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) to establish mandatory procedures requiring prospective applicants to begin the Commissions pre-filing review process at least six months prior to filing an application for authorization to site and construct a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal. Section 311(d) of EPAct 2005, enacted on August 8, 2005, directs the Commission to promulgate such regulations within 60 days after enactment of EPAct 2005. The regulations  mandatory procedures are designed to encourage applicants for LNG terminal siting and construction authority to cooperate with state and local officials, as required by EPAct 2005. The regulations also make the pre-filing process mandatory for prospective applicants for authority to construct related jurisdictional pipeline and other natural gas facilities, as defined in the regulations. The regulations also require a prospective applicant to comply with the pre-filing procedures prior to filing an application to make modifications to an existing or authorized LNG terminalDocket No. RM05-31-000-- 2--if such modifications involve significant state and local safety considerations that have

The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission Information Digest (digest) provides a summary of information about the US Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC), NRCs regulatory responsibility the activities NRC licenses, and general information on domestic and worldwide nuclear energy. The digest, published annually, is a compilation of nuclear-and NRC-related data and is designed to provide a quick reference to major facts about the agency and the industry it regulates. In general, the data cover 1975 through 1993, with exceptions noted. Information on generating capacity and average capacity factor for operating US commercial nuclear power reactors is obtained from monthly operating reports that are submitted directly to the NRC by the information is reviewed by the NRC for consistency only and no independent validation and/or verification is performed.

REGULATORYCOMMISSIONREGULATORYCOMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 JAN 2 2 1982 -/ Departmznt'of Ene,rgy ATTN : Dr. William E. Mott, Director Environmental and Safety Engineering Division (EP-32) Washington, D.C. 20545 Dear Dr. Mott: Enclosed is the list of contaminated'or potentially contaminated sites that I promised to send you during our recent meeting. The sites have been broken down into the followi,ng four categories: 1. Sites with known contamination that have never been 1 icensed. 2. Formerly licensed sites with known contamination. 3. Currently licensed sites that are being decontaminated prior to decoronissioning. 4. A list of formerly licensed sites that need to be visited to determine if they have been properly decontaminated prior to decommissioning.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (January 15, 2013) In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission's (Commission or FERC's) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects reviewed the Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington's (Snohomish PUD) application for a 10-year pilot license for the proposed Admiralty Inlet Tidal Project No. 12690, which would be located in Admiralty Inlet in Puget Sound, near the City of Port Townsend, in Island County, Washington, and has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE/EA-1949). In the EA, Commission staff analyzed the potential environmental effects of constructing and

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (August 9, 2013) In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission's (Commission or FERC's) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects reviewed the Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington's (Snohomish PUD) application for a 10-year license for the proposed Admiralty Inlet Pilot Tidal Project No. 12690, which would be located in Admiralty Inlet in Puget Sound, near the City of Port Townsend, in Island County, Washington, and has prepared a final environmental assessment (FEA) in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE/EA-1949). In the FEA, Commission staff analyzed the potential environmental effects of

Ocean Renewable Power Company Maine, LLC Project No. 12711-005 Ocean Renewable Power Company Maine, LLC Project No. 12711-005 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED COBSCOOK BAY TIDAL ENERGY PROJECT (January 4, 2012) In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission's (Commission or FERC's) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC's application for an 8-year pilot license for the proposed Cobscook Bay Tidal Energy Project (FERC Project No. 12711-005), which would be located in Cobscook Bay in Washington County, Maine, and has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy

Commends the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission's Commends the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission's Approval of a Second Early Site Permit in Just One Month Department of Energy Commends the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission's Approval of a Second Early Site Permit in Just One Month March 27, 2007 - 12:10pm Addthis The Entergy Corporation's Grand Gulf Site in Mississippi Receives NRC Approval for an ESP WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today applauded the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission's (NRC) decision to approve an Early Site Permit (ESP) for the Entergy Corporation's Grand Gulf Nuclear Station in Mississippi. This approval, the second ESP this month, demonstrates another major milestone in President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative, which plans to expand the use of safe and clean nuclear power. Earlier this

Praises the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission Approval of the Praises the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission Approval of the First United States Nuclear Plant Site in Over 30 Years Energy Praises the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission Approval of the First United States Nuclear Plant Site in Over 30 Years March 8, 2007 - 10:28am Addthis WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today commended the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission's decision to approve the first-ever Early Site Permit (ESP) for the Exelon Generation Company's Clinton site, in central Illinois. This decision marks a major milestone in the President's plan to expand the use of safe and clean nuclear power. As part of President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative - which seeks to change the way we power this nation - nuclear power will play an increasingly

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORYCOMMISSION FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORYCOMMISSION ) Emergency Petition and Complaint of ) Docket No. EL05-145-000 District of Columbia Public Service Comm'n ) ) POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND COMMENT IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY PETITION AND COMPLAINT Pursuant to Rules 211 and 214 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission ("FERC" or the "Commission"), 18 C.F.R. Â§Â§ 385.211 and 385.214 (2004), Potomac Electric Power Company ("Pepco") hereby moves to intervene in the above-captioned proceeding and supports the August 24, 2005 Emergency Petition and Complaint filed by the District of Columbia Public Service Commission ("DC PSC"). As discussed below, Mirant Corporation and its public utility subsidiaries (collectively, "Mirant")

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission's (NRC) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has begun a program to create a risk-informed environment within the reactor program. The first step of the process is to evaluate the existing environment and internal NRC stakeholder perceptions of risk-informed regulatory practices. This paper reports on the results of the first phase of this evaluation: assessing the current environment, including the level of acceptance of risk-informed approaches throughout the reactor program, the level of integration, areas of success, and areas of difficulty. The other two phases of the evaluation will identify barriers to the integration of risk into NRC activities and gather input on how to move to a risk-informed environment.

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORYCOMMISSION FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORYCOMMISSION ) Emergency Petition and Complaint of ) Docket No. EL05-145-000 District of Columbia Public Service Comm'n ) ) POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER AND ANSWER TO COMMENTS AND PROTESTS Pursuant to Rules 212 and 213 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission ("FERC" or the "Commission"), 18 C.F.R. Â§Â§ 385.212 and 385.213 (2005), Potomac Electric Power Company ("Pepco") hereby (i) moves for leave to answer and (ii) answers certain of the comments and protests filed in the above-captioned proceeding. 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 On August 24, 2005, Mirant 3 shut down the Potomac River generating station in Alexandria, Virginia (the "Potomac River Plant" or the "Plant") without authority from any court

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

The attached report presents the results of the independent certified public accountant`s audit of the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission`s (FERC) financial statements as of September 30, 1995 and 1994. The auditors have expressed an unqualified opinion on the 1995 statements. Their reports on FERC`s internal control structure and on compliance with laws and regulations, and management letter are also provided.

This report presents the results of the independent certified public accountants` audit of the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission`s (FERC) financial statements as of September 30, 1996. The auditors have expressed an unqualified opinion on the 1996 statement of financial position and the related statements of operations and changes in net position.

submit to the Commission for approval proposed Reliability Standards that address the impact of geomagnetic disturbances (GMD) on the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. The Commission directs NERC to implement the directive in two stages. In the first stage, NERC must submit, within six months of the effective date of this Final Rule, one or more Reliability Standards that require owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System to develop and implement operational procedures to mitigate the effects of GMDs consistent with the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. In the second stage, NERC must submit, within 18 months of the effective date of this Final Rule, one or more Reliability Standards that require owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System to conduct initial and on-going assessments of the potential impact of benchmark GMDDocket No. RM12-22-000- 2-events on Bulk-Power System equipment and the Bulk-Power System as a whole. The Second Stage GMD Reliability Standards must identify benchmark GMD events that specify what severity GMD events a responsible entity must assess for potential impacts on the Bulk-Power System. If the assessments identify potential impacts from benchmark GMD events, the Reliability Standards should require owners and operators

This report includes the issuances received during the specified period from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).

Information and Reporting System (REIRS) Information and Reporting System (REIRS) ORISE maintains large database of radiation exposure records for the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission Radiation Exposure Information and Reporting System (REIRS) The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) is required by federal mandate to maintain and evaluate radiation protection data for workers at facilities that it licenses. As part of its mission of safety, the NRC operates the Radiation Exposure Information and Reporting System (REIRS), a database system containing all occupational radiation exposure records that have been submitted to the NRC under 10 CFR Part 20. REIRS encompasses 1,800-plus NRC licensees and contains more than five million records for more than one million monitored individuals.

The purpose of this Commission paper (SECY) is to provide the Commission with information and options to address to what extent, if any, the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommissions (NRCs) regulatory framework should be modified regarding its consideration of the economic consequences of an unintended release of licensed nuclear materials to the environment. SUMMARY: The accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan initiated discussion of how the NRCs regulatory framework considers offsite property damage and other economic consequences caused by a significant radiological release from an NRC-licensed facility and licensed material. In response to this discussion, on April 6, 2012, the Office of the Executive Director for Operations (OEDO) directed the staff (see Enclosure 1, Tasking for RES) to provide a notation vote paper to the Commission on how the NRCs regulatory framework currently considers the economic consequences associated with the unintended 1 release of licensed nuclear material to the environment and alternatives for Commission consideration. CONTACT:

To meet the objectives of the program funded by the Department of Energy (DOE)-Nuclear Energy (NE) Technology Support Programs, the Performance Assurance Project Office (PAPO) administers a Performance Assurance Information Program that collects, compiles, and distributes program-related information, reports, and publications for the benefit of the DOE-NE program participants. THE KWOC Index of US Nuclear RegulatoryCommissionRegulatory Guide Series'' is prepared as an aid in searching for specific topics in the US Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Regulatory Guide Series.

Digests and indexes for issuances of the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and licensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) the Directors` Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM) are presented in this document. These digests and indexes are intended to serve as a guide to the issuances. Information elements are displayed in one or more of five separate formats arranged as follows: Case Name Index; Headers and Digests; Legal Citations Index; Subject Index; and Facility Index.

This document contains organization charts for the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) and for the five offices of the NRC. Function statements are provided delineating the major responsibilities and operations of each office. Organization and function are provided to the branch level. The head of each office, division, and branch is also listed.

BEFORE THE BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORYCOMMISSION Emergency Petition and Complaint of ) Docket No. EL05-145-000 District of Columbia Public Service ) Commission ) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER AND ANSWER OF POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY Pursuant to Rule 213 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. Â§ 385.213, Potomac Electric Power Company ("Pepco") hereby moves for leave to answer and answers the Motion for Leave to File Consolidated Answer and Consolidated Answer of Robert G. Burnley, Director of the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality filed on November 10, 2005 ("VDEQ Answer"). For the reasons detailed below, Pepco requests that the Commission reject VDEQ's Answer, or in the alternative, if the

This book contains an issuance of the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission and a Director`s Decision. The issuance concerns consideration by the Commission of appeals from both the Initial Decision and a Reconsideration Order issued by the Presiding Officer involving two materials license amendment applications filed by the University of Missouri. The Director`s Decision from the Office of Enforcement denies petitions filed by Northeast Utilities employees requesting that accelerated enforcement action be taken against Northeast Utilities for activities concerned with NU`s fitness-for-duty program.

33 Federal Register 33 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission [Docket No. RM98-1-000] Records Governing Off-the Record Communications Public Notice This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications. Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication. Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file

This report contains the issuances received during the specified period (May 1993) from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), the Directors` Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM). The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein are not deemed a part of these opinions or have any independent legal significance. Contents of this document include an Issuance of the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission with respect to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District and Issuances of Directors` Decisions concerning the Interstate Nuclear Service Corporation; Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation; and Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al. and All Nuclear Power Plants with Thermo-Lag Fire Barriers.

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

4 FERC Â¶ 62,213 4 FERC Â¶ 62,213 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORYCOMMISSION United States Department of Energy Docket No. EF13-5-000 Western Area Power Administration Washoe Project, Stampede Division ORDER CONFIRMING AND APPROVING RATE SCHEDULE ON A FINAL BASIS ( September 5, 2013 ) Summary: On April 24, 2013, the Deputy Secretary of Energy (Deputy Secretary) filed a request for final confirmation and approval of Western Area Power Administration's (Western) Rate Schedule SNF-7, for a non-firm power formula rate applicable to the Washoe Project, Stampede Division (Washoe Project). 1 The Deputy Secretary placed the rates into effect on an interim basis effective August 1, 2013, 2 and requests final confirmation and approval of the rates for the period

This book contains issuances of the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission and of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards, and an issuance of the Director`s decision. The issuances concern a petition filed by Dr. James E Bauer seeking interlocutory Commission review of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board`s order imposing several restrictions on Dr. Bauer; a denial of an Interveners` Petition for Review addressing the application of Babcock and Wilcox for a renewal of its Special Nuclear Materials License; granting a motion for a protective order, by Sequoyah Fuel Corporation and General Atomics, limiting the use of the protected information to those individuals participating in the litigation and for the purposes of the litigation only; granting a Petitioner`s petition for leave to intervene and request for a hearing concerning Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor) renewal of a facility license; and a denial of a petition filed by Mr. Ted Dougherty requesting a shutdown of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station based on concerns regarding the vulnerability of the plant to earthquakes and defensibility of the plant to a terrorist threat.

Natural Gas Regulation - Delaware Public Service Commission Natural Gas Regulation - Delaware Public Service Commission (Delaware) Natural Gas Regulation - Delaware Public Service Commission (Delaware) < Back Eligibility Utility Investor-Owned Utility State/Provincial Govt Industrial Municipal/Public Utility Local Government Fuel Distributor Program Info State Delaware Program Type Generating Facility Rate-Making Provider Delaware Public Service Commission The Delaware Public Service Commissionregulates only the distribution of natural gas to Delaware consumers. The delivery and administrative costs associated with natural gas distribution are determined in base rate proceedings before the Commission. The recovery of costs associated with the natural gas used by customers is determined annually as part of fuel adjustment proceedings. As a result of this process, rates for natural gas

Commission General Rules and Regulations (Arkansas) Commission General Rules and Regulations (Arkansas) Oil and Gas Commission General Rules and Regulations (Arkansas) < Back Eligibility Agricultural Commercial Construction Fuel Distributor General Public/Consumer Industrial Installer/Contractor Investor-Owned Utility Local Government Municipal/Public Utility Retail Supplier Rural Electric Cooperative Utility Program Info State Arkansas Program Type Environmental Regulations Siting and Permitting Provider Department of Natural Resources The Oil and Gas Commission General Rules and Regulations are the body of rules and regulations that relate to natural gas production in Arkansas. The statutory law is found Arkansas Code Annotated Title 15 chapter 72. Contained in this summary are the rules and regulations most relevant to

Report to Congress:Impacts of the Federal Energy Regulatory Report to Congress:Impacts of the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission's Proposal for Standard Market Design Report to Congress:Impacts of the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission's Proposal for Standard Market Design A report on an independent study to assess various potential impacts of the proposed rulemaking by the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC), "Remedying Undue Discrimination through Open Access Transmission Service and Standard Electricity Market Design." Report to Congress:Impacts of the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission's Proposal for Standard Market Design More Documents & Publications Electric System Decision Making in Other Regions: A Preliminary Analysis Prepared for Western Interstate Energy Board Committee on Regional Electric

U.S. Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory U.S. Department of Energy and the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC) jointly submitted to Congress a required "Implementation Proposal for The National Action Plan on Demand Response." The U.S. Department of Energy and the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC) jointly submitted to Congress a required "Implementation Proposal for The National Action Plan on Demand Response." August 1, 2011 - 1:59pm Addthis The U.S. Department of Energy and the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC) jointly submitted to Congress a required "Implementation Proposal for The National Action Plan on Demand Response." Addthis Related Articles Implementation Proposal for The National Action Plan on Demand Response DOE and FERC Joint Public Statement on Back Stop Siting

This report includes the issuances received during the specified period from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), the Directors` Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).

This report includes the issuances received during the specified period from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), the Directors` Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).

This report includes the issuances received during the specified period from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), the Directors` Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).

This report includes the issuances received during the specified period from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), the Directors` Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).

This report includes the issuances received during the specified period from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), the Directors` Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).

This report includes the issuances received during the specified period from the Commission (CLl), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the administrative Law Judges (ALJ), the Directors` Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).

This report includes the issuances received during the specified period from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), the Directors` Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM). The two issuances included here are: (1) the Commission issuance to the US Enrichment Corporation and (2) the Director`s Decision to the North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation.

This publication is the 1st quarter 1996 index to issuances by the US NRC. These include issuances by the Commission, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, the Administrative Law Judges, the Directors` Decisions, and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking.

This report includes the issuances received during the specified period from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), the Directors` Decisions (DD), and the Decision on Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM). This report contains four issuances by the CLI, 5 issuances by the LBP, and 1 issuance by the DD.

This report includes the issuances received during the specified period from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), the Directors` Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM). The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or have any independent legal significance.

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

This report includes the issuances received during the specified period from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), the Directors` Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM). The summaries and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or have any independent legal significance.

U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission Certifies U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission Certifies HalfPACT Transportation Container CARLSBAD, N.M., November 20, 2000 - The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) issued a Certificate of Compliance November 2 for the HalfPACT transportation container. The HalfPACT will be used to supplement the Transuranic Package Transporter Model 2 (TRUPACT-II) for transportation of waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The TRUPACT-II is currently used for transportation of waste to the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The new container is approximately 30 inches shorter than the TRUPACT-II. The HalfPACT is designed to carry seven 55-gallon drums weighing up to 1,000 pounds each, but is also capable of carrying one standard waste box or four 85-gallon drums.

This is the thirty-sixth volume of issuances (1-396) of the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission and its Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards, Administrative Law Judges, and Office Directors. It covers the period from July 1, 1992-December 31, 1992. Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards are authorized by Section 191 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. These Boards, comprised of three members conduct adjudicatory hearings on applications to construct and operate nuclear power plants and related facilities and issue initial decisions which, subject to internal review and appellate procedures, become the final Commission action with respect to those applications. Boards are drawn from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, comprised of lawyers, nuclear physicists and engineers, environmentalists, chemists, and economists. The Atomic Energy Commission first established Licensing Boards in 1962 and the Panel in 1967.

The hardbound edition of the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission Issuances is a final compilation of the monthly issuances. It includes all of the legal precedents for the agency within a six-month period. Any opinions, decisions, denials, memoranda and orders of the Commission inadvertently omitted from the monthly softbounds and any corrections submitted by the NRC legal staff to the printed softbound issuances are contained in the hardbound edition. Cross references in the text and indexes are to the NRCI page numbers which are the same as the page numbers in this publication. Issuances are referred to as follows: Commission--CLI, Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards--LBP, Administrative Law Judges--ALJ, Directors` Decisions--DD, and Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking--DPRM.

This report includes the issuances received in March 1997. Issuances are from the Commission, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards, and the Directors` Decisions. 10 issuances were received: Louisiana Energy Services (2 issuances); Illinois Power Company and Soyland Power Cooperative; Ralph. L. Tetrick; University of Cincinnati; Consumers Power Company; Entergy Operations, Inc.; Georgia Power Company; Westinghouse Electric Corporation; and Wisconsin Electric Power Company. No issuances were received from the the Administrative Law Judges or the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking.

This report covers the issuances received during the specified period form the Commission, the Atomic Safety and licensing Boards, the administrative Law Judges, the Director`s decisions and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking. Included are a memorandum and order on the decommissioning plan for Yankee Nuclear Power Station, a memorandum and order suspending byproduct material license for Eastern Testing and Inspection, Inc., an initial decision of the source materials license for Sequoyah Fuels Corporation, Director`s decisions for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Indian Point, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Trojan Nuclear Plant, Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, and Yankee Nuclear Power Station.

This report includes the issuances received in November 1996. Issuances are from the Commission, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards, and the Directors` Decisions. Seven issuances were received and are abstracted individually in the database: Emerick S. McDaniel, U.S. Enrichment Corporation, Sequoyah Fuels Corporation and General Atomics, all power reactor licensees, Florida Power and Light Company, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, and Northern States Power Company. No issuances were received from the the Administrative Law Judges or the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking.

This report includes the issuances received in October 1996. Issuances are from the Commission, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards, and the Directors` Decisions. 15 issuances were received and are abstracted individually in the database: Louisiana Energy Services, U.S. Enrichment Corporation, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation, James L. Shelton, Juan Guzman, Northern States Power Company, TESTCO Inc., Washington Public Power Supply System, all nuclear plants, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Duke Power Company, Florida Power Corporation, and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (2 issuances). No issuances were received from the the Administrative Law Judges or the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking.

This report include the issuances received during the specificed period (August 1995) from the NRC, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards, the Administrative Law Judges, and the Decisions on Petitions for Rule Making. In these issuances, the following areas were addressed: (1) Emergency planning at the University of Missouri, (2) Transfer of operating license at Plant Vogtle, (3) Discriminatory action against a whistle-blower at Millstone Units 1 & 2, (4) Regulatory issues related to embittlement and cracking at Oyster Creek, and (5) Age-related deterioration of reactor internals components at Pilgrim.

AUDIT OF THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORYCOMMISSION LEASED WAREHOUSE SPACE The Office of Inspector General wants to make the distribution of its reports as customer friendly and cost effective as possible. Therefore, this report will be available electronically through the Internet 5 to 7 days after publication at the following alternative addresses:

The hardbound edition of the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission Issuances is a final compilation of the monthly issuances. It includes all of the legal precedents for the agency within a six-month period. Any opinions, decisions, denials, memoranda and orders of the Commission inadvertently omitted from the monthly softbounds and any corrections submitted by the NRC legal staff to the printed softbound issuances are contained in the hardbound edition. Cross references in the text and indexes are to the NRCI page numbers which are the same as the page numbers in this publication. This book covers the following: issuances of the NRC; issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards; and issuances of Directors` decisions.

SUMMARY: In this Order Granting Clarification, the Commission addresses pending requests to clarify Form No. 552, under which natural gas market participants must annually report information regarding physical natural gas transactions that use an index or that contribute to or may contribute to the formation of a gas index. Order No. 704 required market participants to file these reports in order to provide greater transparency concerning the use of indices to price natural gas and how well index prices reflect market forces. Order No. 704-C revises Form No. 552 so as to (1) exempt from reporting any unexercised options to take gas under a take-or-release contract; (2) clarify the definition of exempt unprocessed natural gas transactions as those involving gas that is both not yet processed (to separate and recover natural gas liquids), and still upstream of a processing facility; (3) exempt from reporting cash-out and imbalance transactions, since they were burdensome to report and provided little market information; (4) strike the forms references to the blanket sales certificates issued under § 284.402 or § 284.284, sinceDocket No. RM07-10-002- 2-they were burdensome to report and provided little market information, so as to also

As specified in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is required to post smart grid interoperability standards for consideration by the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC). FERC is to determine if there is sufficient consensus for the standards to be adopted. A FERC technical conference was held on January 31, 2011, to review the five families of standards that were posted by NIST, and following the technical conference, comme...

One technology that can assist utilities remain financially viable in competitive markets and help utilities and regulators to better serve the public is information technology. Because geography is an important part of an electric, natural gas, telecommunications, or water utility, computer-based Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and related Automated Mapping/Facilities Management systems are emerging as core technologies for managing an ever-expanding variety of formerly manual or paper-based tasks. This report focuses on GIS as an example of the types of information systems that can be used by utilities and regulatorycommissions. Chapter 2 provides general information about information systems and effects of information on organizations; Chapter 3 explores the conversion of an organization to an information-based one; Chapters 4 and 5 set out GIS as an example of the use of information technologies to transform the operations of utilities and commissions; Chapter 6 describes the use of GIS and other information systems for organizational reengineering efforts; and Chapter 7 examines the regulatory treatment of information systems.

Regulation of genes is fundamental to all living processes and can be exerted at many sequential steps. We studied several eukaryotic gene regulatory mechanisms with an emphasis on understanding the interplay between ...

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

This report provides an evaluation of the Project Plan. The Project Plan is intended to provide the high-level direction that documents the required software activities to meet the contractual commitments prepared by the sponsor; the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.

This report provides an evaluation of the Project Plan. The Project Plan is intended to provide the high-level direction that documents the required software activities to meet the contractual commitments prepared by the sponsor; the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.

This report provides an evaluation of the Project Plan. The Project Plan is intended to provide the high-level direction that documents the required software activities to meet the contractual commitments prepared by the sponsor; the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.

In this study an index of the effectiveness of the institutional design of telecommunication regulators for 142 countries that belong to the International Telecommunications Union is produced. This index - the Telecommunications Regulatory Governance ... Keywords: Benchmarking, Country-wide governance, Telecoms regulation

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety 09 / z-4 (p7- 317,7p-4) The enclosed application for Material License and one copy is being submitted for the purpose of obtaining a specific license from the United States Nuclear RegulatoryCommission to obtain two cross belt analyzers. The analyzers would be utilized at the Appalachian Power Companys John E. Amos Plant in West Virginia. The Appalachian Power Company and the John E. Amos Plant are included in American Electric Power. If I can be of any further assistance please give me a call at my office telephone number

Over the past several years, the United States Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) has actively worked to capture and preserve lessons learned from the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. More recently, NRC has involved industry groups, the Organization of Agreement States (OAS), and the Department of Energy (DOE) in the effort to develop approaches to capture, preserve and disseminate decommissioning lessons learned. This paper discusses the accomplishments of the working group, some lessons learned by the NRC in the recent past, and how NRC will incorporate these lessons learned into its regulatory framework. This should help ensure that the design and operation of current and future nuclear facilities will result in less environmental impact and more efficient decommissioning. In summary, the NRC will continue capturing today's experience in decommissioning so that future facilities can take advantage of lessons learned from today's decommissioning projects. NRC, both individually and collectively with industry groups, OAS, and DOE, is aggressively working on the preservation and implementation of decommissioning lessons learned. The joint effort has helped to ensure the lessons from the whole spectrum of decommissioning facilities (i.e., reactor, fuel cycle, and material facilities) are better understood, thus maximizing the amount of knowledge and best practices obtained from decommissioning activities. Anticipated regulatory activities at the NRC will make sure that the knowledge gained from today's decommissioning projects is preserved and implemented to benefit the nuclear facilities that will decommission in the future.

4 25 63 carefully, also. In fact, I would like to put in the r e c o r d at this point a letter that the Board sent to Admiral Bowman complimenting him on those reports , because we find them very helpful. Thank you. Any other questions? DR. MANSFIELD: I second that: especially the radiological safety reports and environmental reports. CHAIFWAN CONWAY: Yes , very important , and we thank you. We thank you for your assistance here today . Thank you very much. Now we have the experienced representatives from the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Ms. Cynthia Carpenter and Dr. Edwin Hackett. If you would each introduce yourselves for the record. MS. CARPENTER: Good morning. My name is Cynthia Carpenter. I'm the Deputy Director of the Division of Inspection Program Management from the

As specified in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is required to post smart grid interoperability standards for consideration by the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC). FERC is to determine if there is sufficient consensus for the standards to be adopted. A FERC technical conference was held on January 31, 2011, to review the five families of standards that were posted by NIST. The FERC Commissioners posed questions to two...

This report provides an evaluation of the risk management. Risk management is intended to ensure a methodology for conducting risk management planning, identification, analysis, responses, and monitoring and control activities associated with the SAPHIRE project work, and to meet the contractual commitments prepared by the sponsor; the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.

Digests and indexes for issuances of the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), the Directors` Decisions (DD), and the Decision on Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM) are presented in this document. These digests and indexes are intended to serve as a guide to the issuances. Information elements common to the cases heard and ruled upon are: case name (owner(s) of facility); full text reference (volume and pagination); issuance number; issues raised by apellants; legal citations (cases, regulations, and statutes); name of facility, docket number; subject matter of issues and/or rulings; type of hearing (operating license, operating license amendment, etc.); type of issuance (memorandum, order, decision, etc.).

In recent years, reliability problems have surfaced with power plant motor-operated valves (MOVs) that (a) fail to perform as designed, and/or (b) require excessive maintenance to perform their intended function. As a result, the US Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) mandated certain testing and reporting requirements in inspection and enforcement bulletin 85-03 (85-03). The NRC's generic letter 89-10 (89-10) significantly expands these requirements, to include all safety-related and position-changeable MOVs. The MOV program experience at the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) Rancho Seco plant is particularly valuable since the NRC, to a large extent, utilized this program as the prototype for 89-10's requirements. The MOV inspection, overhaul, and testing began in September 1986, with completion scheduled for December 1986. The paper discusses problems encountered, recovery plant, results of recovery planning, and lessons learned. Experience at Rancho Seco has shown that comprehensive valve programs incorporating appropriate design practices, preventive maintenance practices, and operational constraints can improve plant availability.

The US Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) is one of six Federal agencies participating in a pilot project to streamline financial management reporting. The goal of this pilot is to consolidate performance-related reporting into a single accountability report. The project, which is being carried out under the guidance of the Chief Financial Officers Council, was undertaken in accordance with the Government Management Reform Act (GMRA) of 1994. The GMRA permits the streamlining of financial management reports in consultation with the appropriate Congressional Committees through a liaison in the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The results of the pilot project will determine the method to be used for reporting financial management information for fiscal year (FY) 1996. This report consolidates the information previously reported in the following documents: (1) the NRC`s annual financial statement required by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990; (2) the Chairman`s annual report to the President and the Congress, required by the Federal Managers` Financial Integrity Act of 1982; (3) the Chairman`s semiannual report to the Congress on management decisions and final actions on Office of Inspector General audit recommendations, required by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. This report also includes performance measures, as required by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990.

Oil and Gas Commission General Rules and Regulations Oil and Gas Commission General Rules and Regulations Continued(Arkansas) Oil and Gas Commission General Rules and Regulations Continued(Arkansas) < Back Eligibility Agricultural Commercial Construction Fuel Distributor General Public/Consumer Industrial Installer/Contractor Investor-Owned Utility Local Government Municipal/Public Utility Retail Supplier Rural Electric Cooperative Utility Program Info State Arkansas Program Type Siting and Permitting Provider Department of Natural Resources The General Rules have been adopted by the Oil and Gas Commission in accordance with applicable state law requirements and are General Rules of state-wide application, applying to the conservation and prevention of waste of crude oil and natural gas in the State of Arkansas and protection

Engineered barriers including cementitious barriers are used at sites disposing or contaminated with low-level radioactive waste to enhance performance of the natural environment with respect to controlling the potential spread of contaminants. Drivers for using cementitious barriers include: high radionuclide inventory, radionuclide characteristics (e.g., long half-live, high mobility due to chemical form/speciation, waste matrix properties, shallow water table, and humid climate that provides water for leaching the waste). This document comprises the first in a series of reports being prepared for the Cementitious Barriers Partnership. The document is divided into two parts which provide a summary of: (1) existing experience in the assessment of performance of cementitious materials used for radioactive waste management and disposal and (2) sensitivity and uncertainty analysis approaches that have been applied for assessments. Each chapter is organized into five parts: Introduction, Regulatory Considerations, Specific Examples, Summary of Modeling Approaches and Conclusions and Needs. The objective of the report is to provide perspective on the state of the practice for conducting assessments for facilities involving cementitious barriers and to identify opportunities for improvements to the existing approaches. Examples are provided in two contexts: (1) performance assessments conducted for waste disposal facilities and (2) performance assessment-like analyses (e.g., risk assessments) conducted under other regulatory regimes. The introductory sections of each section provide a perspective on the purpose of performance assessments and different roles of cementitious materials for radioactive waste management. Significant experience with assessments of cementitious materials associated with radioactive waste disposal concepts exists in the US Department of Energy Complex and the commercial nuclear sector. Recently, the desire to close legacy facilities has created a need to assess the behavior of cementitious materials for applications in environmental remediation and decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) applications. The ability to assess the use and benefits of cementitious materials for these applications can significantly affect decisions related to cleanup activities. For example the need for costly remedial actions may not be necessary if existing or new cementitious barriers were adequately represented. The sections dealing with regulatory considerations include summaries of the different regulations that are relevant for various applications involving cementitious materials. A summary of regulatory guidance and/or policies pertaining to performance assessment of cementitious materials and sensitivity and uncertainty analyses is also provided in the following chapters. Numerous examples of specific applications are provided in each report. The examples are organized into traditional waste disposal applications (performance assessments), applications related to environmental remediation and D&D, and reactor and spent fuel related assessments. Sections that discuss specific facilities or sites contain: (1) descriptions of the role of the cementitious barriers or sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, (2) parameter assumptions and conceptual models, and (3) a relative discussion of the significance in the context of the assessment. Examples from both the U.S. Department of Energy Sites and the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission are provided to illustrate the variety of applications and approaches that have been used. In many cases, minimal credit was taken for cementitious barriers. However, in some of those cases, benefits of being able to take credit for barriers were identified. The examples included: (1) disposal facilities (vaults, trenches, tank closures, cementitious waste forms and containers, etc.), (2) environmental remediation (old disposal facilities), (3) reactor and large structure decommissioning, and (4) spent fuel pools. These examples were selected to provide a perspective on the various ne

In September 2003, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) staff in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) consolidated and updated the policies and guidance of its decommissioning program in a three-volume NUREG report, NUREG-1757, 'Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance' [1,2,3]. This NUREG report provides guidance on: planning and implementing license termination under the NRC's License Termination Rule (LTR), in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E; complying with the radiological criteria for license termination; and complying with the requirements for financial assurance and record-keeping for decommissioning and timeliness in decommissioning of materials facilities. The staff plans to periodically update NUREG-1757, so that it reflects current NRC decommissioning policy. In September 2005, the staff issued, for public comment, draft Supplement 1 to NUREG-1757 [4], which contains proposed updates to the three volumes of NUREG-1757. Draft Supplement 1 includes new and revised decommissioning guidance that addresses some of the LTR implementation issues, which were analyzed by the staff in two Commission papers (SECY-03-0069, Results of the LTR Analysis [5]; and SECY-04-0035, Results of the LTR Analysis of the Use of Intentional Mixing of Contaminated Soil [6]). These issues include restricted use and institutional controls, onsite disposal of radioactive materials under 10 CFR 20.2002, selection and justification of exposure scenarios based on reasonably foreseeable future land use (realistic scenarios), intentional mixing of contaminated soil, and removal of material after license termination (a follow-up to the LTR Analysis issue on the relationship between the LTR and the current case-by-case approach for release of solid materials). The staff also developed new and revised guidance on other issues, including the risk-informed graded approach for engineered barriers. This paper is a follow-up to a poster session and paper at Waste Management 2004, which presented the new Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance in NUREG-1757. This paper discusses the issues addressed in the current update to NRC's decommissioning guidance and explores the relationships between the issues. (authors)

Building managers often find that HVAC, lighting and other systems in new buildings need adjustments and modifications. The owner, architect and contractor may mistakenly assume that all of a building`s systems--architectural, mechanical, control and electrical--function according to the design intent. Thus, energy managers can optimize their building`s performance through commissioning, a process that looks for and corrects the defects in a building` operating system or design, immediately before and after it is occupied (following construction or renovation).

Hanford has played a pivotal role in the United States' defense for more than 60 years, beginning with the Manhattan Project in the 1940s. During its history, the Hanford Site has had nine reactors producing plutonium for the United States' nuclear weapons program. All the reactors were located next to the Columbia River and all had associated low-level radioactive and hazardous waste releases. Site cleanup, which formally began in 1989 with the signing of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, also known as the Tri-Party Agreement, involves more than 1,600 waste sites and burial grounds, and the demolition of more than 1,500buildings and structures, Cleanup is scheduled to be complete by 2035. Regulatory oversight of the cleanup is being performed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Washington State Department of Ecology(Ecology) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Revised Code of Washington, 'Hazardous Waste Management.' Cleanup of the waste sites and demolition of the many buildings and structures generates large volumes of contaminated soil, equipment, demolition debris, and other wastes that must be disposed of in a secure manner to prevent further environmental degradation. From a risk perspective, it is essential the cleanup waste be moved to a disposal facility located well away from the Columbia River. The solution was to construct very large engineered landfill that meets all technical regulatory requirements, on the Hanford Site Central Plateau approximately 10kilometers from the river and 100metersabovegroundwater. This landfill, called the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility or ERDF is a series of cells, each 150x 300 meters wide at the bottom and 20 meters deep. This paper looks at the substantive environmental regulations applied to ERDF, and how the facility is designed to protect the environment and meet regulatory requirements. The paper describes how the U.S. Department of Energy(DOE),EPA, and Ecology interact in its regulation. In addition, the response to a recent $1 million regulatory fine is described to show actual interactions and options in this aspect of the regulatory process. The author acknowledges the significant contributions by Messrs. Clifford Clark and Owen Robertson. Ms. Nancy Williams provided graphics support and Ms. Laurie Kraemer edited the report.

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

Hanford has played a pivotal role in the United States' defense for more than 60 years, beginning with the Manhattan Project in the 1940s. During its history, the Hanford Site has had nine reactors producing plutonium for the United States' nuclear weapons program. All the reactors were located next to the Columbia River and all had associated low-level radioactive and hazardous waste releases. Site cleanup, which formally began in 1989 with the signing of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, also known as the Tri-Party Agreement, involves more than 1,600 waste sites and burial grounds, and the demolition of more than 1,500buildings and structures, Cleanup is scheduled to be complete by 2035. Regulatory oversight of the cleanup is being performed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Washington State Department of Ecology(Ecology) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Revised Code of Washington, 'Hazardous Waste Management.' Cleanup of the waste sites and demolition of the many buildings and structures generates large volumes of contaminated soil, equipment, demolition debris, and other wastes that must be disposed of in a secure manner to prevent further environmental degradation. From a risk perspective, it is essential the cleanup waste be moved to a disposal facility located well away from the Columbia River. The solution was to construct very large engineered landfill that meets all technical regulatory requirements, on the Hanford Site Central Plateau approximately 10kilometers from the river and 100metersabovegroundwater. This landfill, called the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility or ERDF is a series of cells, each 150x 300 meters wide at the bottom and 20 meters deep. This paper looks at the substantive environmental regulations applied to ERDF, and how the facility is designed to protect the environment and meet regulatory requirements. The paper describes how the U.S. Department of Energy(DOE),EPA, and Ecology interact in its regulation. In addition, the response to a recent $1 million regulatory fine is described to show actual interactions and options in this aspect of the regulatory process. The author acknowledges the significant contributions by Messrs. Clifford Clark and Owen Robertson. Ms. Nancy Williams provided graphics support and Ms. Laurie Kraemer edited the report.

The Panel finds that the first criterion, pertaining to whether the accident caused a discharge of radioactive material or levels of radiation offsite as defined in 10 CFR 140.84, has not been met. It further finds that there is presently insufficient information to support any definitive finding as to whether or not the second criterion, relating to damage to persons or property offsite as defined in 10 CFR 140.85, has been met. Since the Panel has not found that both criteria have been met, it recommends that the Commission determine that the accident at Three Mile Island did not constitute an extraordinary nuclear occurrence.

The majority of the U.S. reactor fleet is applying for license renewal to extend the operating life from the current 40 years to 60 years, and there is now active interest in extending the operating life to beyond 60 years. Many plants are also applying for increases in power rating and both of these changes increases the need for an improved understanding of materials degradation. Many materials degrade over time and much is known about the degradation of materials under normal environmental conditions; however, less is known about the characteristics of materials degradation when the environment is subject to higher than normal radiological conditions over extended periods of time. Significant efforts are being made by industrial, academic and regulatory groups worldwide to identify, classify and mitigate potential problems arising from degradation of components in this context. From a regulatory perspective, the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (USNRC) is very interested in being able to identify ways to insure their licensees proactively manage the identification of materials degradation and the mitigation of its effects. To date, the USNRC has consolidated generic programs for mitigating aging issues in the two volume Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report (NUREG-1801) [1][2], and have encouraged applicants for license renewal to use these programs where applicable in their plant when applying for renew of their reactors license. The USNRC has also published a comprehensive report entitled Expert Panel Report on Proactive Materials Degradation (NUREG/CR-6923) [3] that inventories the types of degradation mechanisms that could exist in each component of a Light Water Reactor (LWR) and each degradation mechanism is assessed regarding how much is known about mitigating its effects. Since the number of plant designs and materials used varies greatly within the U.S. fleet, there are many variations to implementing aging management programs (AMPs), requiring significant dialogs between the Licensee and the USNRC. These discussions are part of the licensing basis and as such are documented with up to multi-hundred page responses that are loosely coupled through the USNRC Agency-wide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which serves as an electronic records repository for the USNRC . These discussions have supported revisions to the GALL, including the revision that is being prepared as this paper is being written. The USNRC has sought the help of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to improve the staffs ability to navigate the significant numbers of documents that are generated in this process and to provide a forum for regulators, licensees and researchers to share knowledge in the efforts to improve the cyclic process for defining, applying, validating and re-defining AMPs. Work to date in this area is publicly accessible and this paper will describe that work and outline a potential path forward. The presenter will also demonstrate the capabilities of the PMMD information tools (http://pmmd.pnl.gov).

The South Fork Tolt River Hydroelectric Project that world produce 6.55 average megawatts of firm energy per year and would be sited in the Snohomish River Basin, Washington, was evaluated by the Federal Energy Regulatorycommission (FERC) along with six other proposed projects for environmental effects and economic feasibility Based on its economic analysis and environmental evaluation of the project, the FERC staff found that the South Fork Tolt River Project would be economically feasible and would result in insignificant Impacts if sedimentation issues could be resolved. Upon review, the BPA is adopting portions of the 1987 FERC FEIS that concern the South Fork Tolt River Hydroelectric Project and updating specific sections in an Attachment.

Part 2 of the hearing record on appropriations for the fiscal year 1982 DOE budget for certain energy and water development programs opens with remarks by Energy Secretary James B. Edwards, who summarizes the Reagan energy policy of reducing federal participation in the funding and regulation of these projects and gives an overview of DOE programs. Subsequent hearings covered the Federal Power Marketing Administration; high-energy physics and basic energy science, and magnetic fusion; nuclear fission and uranium enrichment programs, conservation and renewable energy programs; departmental and related activities; Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission and Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Tennessee Valley Authority, and national security and defense programs. The record covers nine days of hearings. (DCK)

Conservation and evolvability in regulatory networks: The evolution of ribosomal regulation genes are conserved across taxa. However, little is known about the mechanisms underlying the evolution of module regulation. Here, we explore the evolution of cis-regulatory pro- grams associated with conserved

Digests and indexes for issuances of the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), the Directors` Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM) are presented in this document. These digests and indexes are intended to serve as a guide to the issuances. These information elements are displayed in one or more of five separate formats arranged as follows: Case Name Index; Digests and Headers; Legal Citations Index; Subject Index, and Facility Index.

Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) appropriations for fiscal years 1986 and 1987 are $429 million and $460 million, respectively. The Bill allocates sums for each year for reactor regulation, inspection and enforcement, nuclear material safety and safeguards, reactor research, program technical support, and program administration. The Bill cites conditions for spending the funds and for entering into grants and cooperative agreements. The NRC is authorized to issue reactor operating licenses in the absence of a state or local emergency preparedness plan if it determines that public safety is assured.

, is the shift from municipal to state regulation of natural gas and electricity that occurred in the first in the natural gas industry, and notes that "[S]tate regulatorycommissions were less responsive to the demands of local voters and consumers. On average, state regulators tolerated higher gas rates than did local

The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission`s (NRC) strategic plan [NUREG-1614, Vol. 1, September 1997] establishes a strategic framework that will guide future decision-making and will help the NRC continue to meet its responsibility for protecting public health and safety, promoting the common defense and security, and protecting the environment. This performance plan complements the agency`s strategic plan by setting annual goals with measurable target levels of performance for FY 1999, as required by the Government Performance and Results Act. No significant contribution was made to the preparation of the performance plan by any non-Federal entity. However, a contractor was used to help facilitate discussions and resolution of issues. Within six months after the close of FY 1999, the NRC will submit to the President and the Congress a report on program performance for FY 1999. This performance report will review the success of the agency in achieving the performance goals established for FY 1999. Where those goals have been achieved, the underlying assumptions and strategies will be examined to ensure that continued applicability is warranted in the future. If any of the FY 1999 performance goals are not met, the agency will conduct a thorough analysis of why it did not meet the goal and the actions necessary to meet-the goal in the future. One result of this analysis will be the documentation of plans and schedules for achieving the established performance goal. If the analysis should indicate that the performance goal is impractical or infeasible, the performance report will document why that is the case and what action is recommended.

(NRRI) with funding provided by participating member commissions of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). The views and opinions of the authors do not necessarily state or reflect the views, opinions, or policies of the NRRI, the NARUC, or NARUC member commissions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study was prepared for state public utility commissioners and their staff in response to the growing concern about the effect of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) on water utilities under their jurisdiction. Compliance with the SDWA is expected to have a significant impact on water utilities and the rates they charge for service. A sensitivity analysis was developed for this report using a hypothetical water company to identify the costs associated with alternative treatment processes. A total of eighteen different treatment processes are considered, from conventional treatment to granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption and reverse osmosis. Capital costs for these processes range from $100,000 to $3.25 million for a water plant with a designed capacity of one million

Regulatory Guides are issued to describe and make available to the public methods acceptable to the NRC staff of implementing specific parts of the Commission's regulations, to delineate tech niques used by the staff in evaluating specific problems or postu lated accidents or to provide guidance to applicants. Regulatory Guides are not substitutes for regulations, and compliance with them is not required. Methods and solutions different from those set out in the guides will be acceptable If they provide a basis for the findings requisite to the Issuance or continuance of a permit or license by the Commission. This guide was issued after consideration of comments received from the public. Comments and suggestions for improvements in these guides are encouraged at all times, and guides will be revised, as appropriate, to accommodate comments and to reflect new Informa tion or experience. Comments should be sent to the Secretary of the Commission,

For the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) Extremely Low Probability of Rupture (xLPR) pilot study, Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) was tasked to develop and evaluate a probabilistic framework using a commercial software package for Version 1.0 of the xLPR Code. Version 1.0 of the xLPR code is focused assessing the probability of rupture due to primary water stress corrosion cracking in dissimilar metal welds in pressurizer surge nozzles. Future versions of this framework will expand the capabilities to other cracking mechanisms, and other piping systems for both pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors. The goal of the pilot study project is to plan the xLPR framework transition from Version 1.0 to Version 2.0; hence the initial Version 1.0 framework and code development will be used to define the requirements for Version 2.0. The software documented in this report has been developed and tested solely for this purpose. This framework and demonstration problem will be used to evaluate the commercial software's capabilities and applicability for use in creating the final version of the xLPR framework. This report details the design, system requirements, and the steps necessary to use the commercial-code based xLPR framework developed by SNL.

U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission nuclear power plant licensees and new reactor applicants are required to provide protection of their plants against radiological sabotage, including the placement of vital equipment in vital areas. This document describes a systematic process for the identification of the minimum set of areas that must be designated as vital areas in order to ensure that all radiological sabotage scenarios are prevented. Vital area identification involves the use of logic models to systematically identify all of the malicious acts or combinations of malicious acts that could lead to radiological sabotage. The models available in the plant probabilistic risk assessment and other safety analyses provide a great deal of the information and basic model structure needed for the sabotage logic model. Once the sabotage logic model is developed, the events (or malicious acts) in the model are replaced with the areas in which the events can be accomplished. This sabotage area logic model is then analyzed to identify the target sets (combinations of areas the adversary must visit to cause radiological sabotage) and the candidate vital area sets (combinations of areas that must be protected against adversary access to prevent radiological sabotage). Any one of the candidate vital area sets can be selected for protection. Appropriate selection criteria will allow the licensee or new reactor applicant to minimize the impacts of vital area protection measures on plant safety, cost, operations, or other factors of concern.

This report examines the history of automobile safety regulation since 1966, viewed as an attempt to substitute public decisions on the design of new automobiles for private decisions. The focus of the

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC), through the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), is updating the 1990 U.S. National Institutes of Health - National Cancer Institute (NCI) report, Cancer in Populations Living near Nuclear Facilities. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) formed a committee of scientists and professionals in the fields of epidemiology, radiation biology, nuclear plant effluents, and environmental risk assessment to provide study design considerations to the NAS committe...

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

This is the 42nd volume of issuances of the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) and its Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards, Administrative Law Judges, and Office Directors. This book is a reprinting, containing corrections of numerous printing errors in a previously distributed book. It covers the period from July 1, 1995 to December 31, 1995. Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards conduct adjudicatory hearings on applications to construct and operate nuclear power plants and related facilities, and issue initial decisions which, subject to internal review and appellate procedures, become the final Commission action with respect to those applications. The hardbound edition of the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission Issuances is a final compilation of the monthly issuances. It includes all of the legal precedents for the agency within a 6-month period. Any opinions, decisions, denials, memoranda and orders of the Commission inadvertently omitted from the monthly editions and any corrections submitted by the NRC legal staff to the printed softbound issuances are contained in the hardbound edition.

This report summarizes the occupational exposure data that are maintained in the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommissions (NRC) Radiation Exposure Information and Reporting System (REIRS). The bulk of the information contained in the report was compiled from the 2010 annual reports submitted by five of the seven categories of NRC licensees subject to the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 20.2206. Because there are no geologic repositories for high-level waste currently licensed and no NRC-licensed low-level waste disposal facilities currently in operation, only five categories will be considered in this report. The annual reports submitted by these licensees consist of radiation exposure records for each monitored individual. These records are analyzed for trends and presented in this report in terms of collective dose and the distribution of dose among the monitored individuals. Annual reports for 2010 were received from a total of 190 NRC licensees. The summation of reports submitted by the 190 licensees indicated that 192,424 individuals were monitored, 81,961 of whom received a measurable dose. When adjusted for transient workers who worked at more than one licensee during the year, there were actually 142,471 monitored individuals and 62,782 who received a measurable dose. The collective dose incurred by these individuals was 10,617 person-rem, which represents a 12% decrease from the 2009 value. This decrease was primarily due to the decrease in collective dose at commercial nuclear power reactors, as well as a decrease in the collective dose for most of the other categories of NRC licensees. The number of individuals receiving a measurable dose also decreased, resulting in an average measurable dose of 0.13 rem for 2010. The average measurable dose is defined as the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) divided by the number of individuals receiving a measurable dose. In calendar year 2010, the average annual collective dose per reactor for light water reactor (LWR) licensees was 83 person-rem. This represents a 14% decrease from the value reported for 2009 (96 person-rem). The decrease in collective dose for commercial nuclear power reactors was due to an 11% decrease in total outage hours in 2010. During outages, activities involving increased radiation exposure such as refueling and maintenance are performed while the reactor is not in operation. The average annual collective dose per reactor for boiling water reactors (BWRs) was 137 personrem for 35 BWRs, and 55 person-rem for 69 pressurized water reactors (PWRs). Analyses of transient individual data indicate that 29,333 individuals completed work assignments at two or more licensees during the monitoring year. The dose distributions are adjusted each year to account for the duplicate reporting of transient individuals by multiple licensees. The adjustment to account for transient individuals has been specifically noted in footnotes in the figures and tables for commercial nuclear power reactors. In 2010, the average measurable dose per individual for all licensees calculated from reported data was 0.13 rem. Although the average measurable dose per individual from data submitted by licensees was 0.13 rem, a corrected dose distribution resulted in an average measurable dose per individual of 0.17 rem.

This report on incentive regulation of nuclear power plants by state public utility commissions (PUCs). Economic performance incentives established by state PUCs are applicable to the construction or operation of about 45 nuclear power reactors owned by 30 utilities in 17 states. The NRC staff monitors development of the incentives and periodically provides an updated report on all nuclear plant incentives to its regional offices. The staff maintains contact with the PUCs and the utilities responsible for implementing the incentives in order to obtain the updated information and to consider potential safety effects of the incentives. This report presents the NRC staff's concerns on potential safety effects of economic performance incentives. It also includes a plant-by-plant survey that describes the mechanics of each incentive and discusses the financial effects of the incentive on the utility-owner(s) of the plant.

Economic performance incentives established by state Public Utility Commissions (PUCs) currently are applicable to the construction or operation of approximately 73 nuclear power reactors owned by 27 utilities with investment greater than 10% in 18 states. The NRC staff monitors development of the incentives and periodically provides an updated report on all nuclear plant incentives to its headquarters and regional offices. The staff maintains contact with the PUCs and the utilities responsible for implementing the incentives in order to obtain the updated information and to consider potential safety effects of the incentives. This report on incentive regulation of nuclear power plants by state PUCs presents the NRC staff's concerns on potential safety effects of economic performance incentives. It also includes a plant-by-plant survey that describes the mechanics of each incentive and discusses the financial effects of the incentive on the utility-owner(s) of the plant.

This document is the March 1996 listing of NRC issuances. Included are: (1) NRC orders granting Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company`s petition for review of the ASLB order LBP-95-17, (2) NRC orders relating to the potential disqualification of two commissioners in the matter of the decommissioning of Yankee Nuclear Power Station, (3) ASLB orders pertaining to the Oncology Services Corporation, (4) ASLB orders pertaining to the Radiation Oncology Center, (5) ASLB orders pertaining to the Yankee Nuclear Power Station, and (6) Director`s decision pertaining to the Yankee Nuclear Power Station.

To obtain Commission approval on options for the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommissions (NRCs) involvement with the Navys remediation of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard (HPS) site, and recommended actions to inform the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Navy, and stakeholders about the Commissions decision regarding NRCs involvement. This paper does not address any new commitments. SUMMARY: In July 2007 the Navy requested that NRC clarify the potential for NRC involvement with the remediation of the HPS site in San Francisco, California. The Navy explained that resolving uncertainties about NRC jurisdiction and involvement is important because of the potential impact on the Navys ongoing remediation and expedited schedules needed to support the redevelopment plans of the City of San Francisco for the site. These redevelopment plans and schedules have high visibility and considerable support from elected Federal, State, and local officials. In response to the Navys request, the staff has evaluated three options for NRCs involvement at the HPS and related policy issues. The staff recommends the option of relying CONTACT:

Purpose: To provide an opportunity for Agreement States to review and comment on recommended changes addressing the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommissions (NRC) materials inspection program. This is an opportunity to provide input * on Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2800. Background: The last revision to Inspection Manual Chapter 2800 (IMC 2800) occurred in September 2005. Since that time, the NRC and Agreement States have implemented new security requirements. This revision provides inspection guidance in regards to some of the more urgent new security requirements, including changes from the Government Accountability Office action plan, as well as to update the previous version in regard to other, lower priority changes. This request supersedes letter RCPD-08-013 dated August 20, 2008, which requested a similar review of IMC 2800. This revision incorporates the comments received from Agreement States that responded to RCPD-08-013.

This report provides an evaluation of the Software Quality Assurance Plan. The Software Quality Assurance Plan is intended to ensure all actions necessary for the software life cycle; verification and validation activities; documentation and deliverables; project management; configuration management, nonconformance reporting and corrective action; and quality assessment and improvement have been planned and a systematic pattern of all actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that a software product conforms to established technical requirements; and to meet the contractual commitments prepared by the sponsor; the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.

This report provides an evaluation of the Software Quality Assurance Plan. The Software Quality Assurance Plan is intended to ensure all actions necessary for the software life cycle; verification and validation activities; documentation and deliverables; project management; configuration management, nonconformance reporting and corrective action; and quality assessment and improvement have been planned and a systematic pattern of all actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that a software product conforms to established technical requirements; and to meet the contractual commitments prepared by the sponsor; the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.

The hardbound edition of the Nuclear Regulatory Issuances is a final compilation of the monthly issuances. It includes all legal precedents for the agency within a six month period. This is the forty-third volume of issuances.

This report overviews crosscutting regulatory topics for nuclear fuel cycle facilities for use in the Fuel Cycle Research&Development Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation and Screening study. In particular, the regulatory infrastructure and analysis capability is assessed for the following topical areas:Fire Regulations (i.e., how applicable are current Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) and/or International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) fire regulations to advance fuel cycle facilities)Consequence Assessment (i.e., how applicable are current radionuclide transportation tools to support risk-informed regulations and Level 2 and/or 3 PRA) While not addressed in detail, the following regulatory topic is also discussed:Integrated Security, Safeguard and Safety Requirement (i.e., how applicable are current Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) regulations to future fuel cycle facilities which will likely be required to balance the sometimes conflicting Material Accountability, Security, and Safety requirements.)

Regulatory Authorities Regulatory Authorities About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates U.S. Natural Gas Regulatory Authorities Beginning | Regulations Today | Coordinating Agencies | Regulation of Mergers and Acquisitions Beginning of Industry Restructuring In April 1992, the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC) issued its Order 636 and transformed the interstate natural gas transportation segment of the industry forever. Under it, interstate natural gas pipeline companies were required to restructure their operations by November 1993 and split-off any non-regulated merchant (sales) functions from their regulated transportation functions. This new requirement meant that interstate natural gas pipeline companies were allowed to only transport natural gas for their customers. The restructuring process and subsequent operations have been supervised closely by FERC and have led to extensive changes throughout the interstate natural gas transportation segment which have impacted other segments of the industry as well.

Given the current uncertainty about the timing and severity of greenhouse gas constraints on electric generation that will result from a federal program, commissions need to begin crafting strategies and procedures to best serve the public interest in this new environment. (author)

This report contains responses by the US Department of Energy to comments from the US Nuclear RegulatoryCommission and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment on the Naturita remedial action plan. This was done in an attempt to clarify information. The site is an inactive uranium processing site at Naturita, Colorado.

This report documents progress for the following major research projects: stabilization, engineering, and monitoring alternatives assessment for improving regulation of uranium recovery operations and waste management; attenuation of radon emission from uranium tailings; assessment of leachate movement from uranium mill tailings; and methods of minimizing ground-water contaminants from in-situ leach uranium mining.

There is growing evidence that the cost savings potential of the Title IV SO{sub 2} cap-and-trade program is not being reached. PUC regulatory treatment of compliance options appears to provide one explanation for this finding. That suggests that PUCs and utility companies should work together to develop incentive plans that will encourage cost-minimizing behavior for compliance with the EPA's recently issued Clean Air Interstate Rule.

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

Six topical areas were covered by the Task Group on Other Dynamic Loads and Load Combinations as described below: Event Combinations - dealing with the potential simultaneous occurrence of earthquakes, pipe ruptures, and water hammer events in the piping design basis; Response Combinations - dealing with multiply supported piping with independent inputs, the sequence of combinations between spacial and modal components of response, and the treatment of high frequency modes in combination with low frequency modal responses; Stress Limits/Dynamic Allowables - dealing with inelastic allowables for piping and strain rate effects; Water Hammer Loadings - dealing with code and design specifications for these loadings and procedures for identifying potential water hammer that could affect safety; Relief Valve Opening and Closing Loads - dealing with the adequacy of analytical tools for predicting the effects of these events and, in addition, with estimating effective cycles for fatigue evaluations; and Piping Vibration Loads - dealing with evaluation procedures for estimating other than seismic vibratory loads, the need to consider reciprocating and rotary equipment vibratory loads, and high frequency vibratory loads. NRC staff recommendations or regulatory changes and additional study appear in this report.

This purpose of this paper is to examine the roles of regulators in long-range utility resource planning. Summary of major points include: Three regulatory options exist today with respect to integrated resource planning: Command and Control Regulation; Incentive Regulation; and Flexible Regulation. If deregulation is likely in the end, flexible regulation today offers the greatest promise of long-run success. Flexible regulation requires commissions and companies to agree on underlying principles and for utility management to exercise defensible judgment.

Part 6 of the hearing record covers testimony by Nunzio J. Palladino and other commissioners and directors of the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC), who described how NRC is organized and how it operates in response to a survey and study of NRC operations prepared for the Committee on Appropriations. The witnesses responded to negative reports of distrust, fiscal inefficiency, ambiguity, and a failure to modify regulatory requirements to reflect new information. The witnesses disagreed that there has been any decline or compromise with plant safety, but agreed that the backfitting program needs better procedures. The volume includes the text of the report and both written comment and oral testimony before the committee.

A Texas Public Utility Commission Staff review of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company of Texas` (SWBT of Texas) incentive regulation plan (the Plan) yielded mixed results. The evaluation of the Plan found that it provided benefits to Texas ratepayers, yet, as with any experiment, there have been both successes and failures in different aspects of the Plan.

Transmission Pipeline Intrastate Regulatory Act Transmission Pipeline Intrastate Regulatory Act (Florida) Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Intrastate Regulatory Act (Florida) < Back Eligibility Commercial Construction Developer Fuel Distributor Industrial Investor-Owned Utility Municipal/Public Utility Retail Supplier Rural Electric Cooperative Systems Integrator Utility Program Info State Florida Program Type Safety and Operational Guidelines Provider Florida Public Service Commission The regulation of natural gas intrastate transportation and sale is deemed to be an exercise of the police power of the state for the protection of the public welfare. The Public Service Commission is empowered to fix and regulate rates and services of natural gas transmission companies, including, without limitation, rules and regulations for determining the

347) requires federal agencies to annually report their security and privacy programs. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provides instructions on complying with the requirements of FISMA. On July 17, 2006, OMB issued a memorandum for heads of executive departments and agencies, M-06-20, FY 2006 Reporting Instructions for the Federal Information Security Management Act and Agency Privacy Management  requiring each agency to determine continued compliance with its public websites posted privacy policy. To that end, FERC will compare its information collection practices on its website with its posted FERC website privacy policy annually to ensure compliance with its stated website privacy policy. 2.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to establish FERC policy and procedures on auditing its compliance with its posted website privacy policy.

Regulatory genes controlling nifexpression and also nifpromoters fused to lacZ from Klebsiella pneumoniae were cloned on wide-host-range plasmids and introduced into Azotobacter vinelandii to compare regulation of nif expression in the two organisms. A low-copy-number plasmid carrying K. pneumoniae nijA corrected an A. vinelandii Nif- regulatory mutation, whereas a plasmid carrying ntrC did not. A high-copy-number plasmid carrying K. pneumoniae nifL eliminated nifexpression in K. pneumoniae but not in A. vinelandii. K. pneumoniae nifL- and nifF-lac2 fusions were expressed strongly in A. vinelandii and were not repressed by ammonium. A nifH-lac2 fusion was not expressed in any conditions in this background except very weakly when K. pneumoniae nifA was also present. The implications of these findings are discussed.

The end of 2012 and beginning of 2013 was a busy time for US regulators and standard-setters as two regulations and one consensus standard made the news. All have implications for oilseed processing and edible oil refining. Regulatory overview Public

Rules and Regulations for Control of Ionizing Radiation (Arkansas) Rules and Regulations for Control of Ionizing Radiation (Arkansas) Rules and Regulations for Control of Ionizing Radiation (Arkansas) < Back Eligibility Utility Program Info State Arkansas Program Type Environmental Regulations Siting and Permitting Provider Department of Health The Rules and Regulations for Control of Ionizing Radiation are the Arkansas state laws made in accordance the federal Nuclear RegulatoryCommission Rules. Any contractor with the US DOE or US Nuclear RegulatoryCommission is exempt from the state laws. This set of rules and regulations basically restates the federal policy to ensure that Arkansas is in compliance with the federal standards governing nuclear energy. Specifically the State rules are equivalent to Nuclear Regulatory

and in the north-eastern section of the United States. They also own liquefied natural gas storage facilitites in Britain and provide infrastructure services to the mobile telecom industry. PNN LN Equity: Pennon Group Plc Pennon Group Plc operates and invests... precise there. 4 Application to Regulated UK Companies In this section we report the results we obtained by computing the beta coeffi- cient for many UK regulated companies which are listed in the FTSE all share. Our time series sample comprises weekly...

This report overviews crosscutting regulatory topics for nuclear fuel cycle facilities for use in the Fuel Cycle Research&Development Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation and Screening study. In particular, the regulatory infrastructure and analysis capability is assessed for the following topical areas:Fire Regulations (i.e., how applicable are current Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) and/or International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) fire regulations to advance fuel cycle facilities)Consequence Assessment (i.e., how applicable are current radionuclide transportation tools to support risk-informed regulations and Level 2 and/or 3 PRA) While not addressed in detail, the following regulatory topic is also discussed:Integrated Security, Safeguard and Safety Requirement (i.e., how applicable are current Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) regulations to future fuel cycle facilities which will likely be required to balance the sometimes conflicting Material Accountability, Security, and Safety requirements.)

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissionregulates essentially all types of public utilities and has the authority to investigate issues of public interest. To establish a point of reference, Pennsylvania's utilities contribute about 5 percent of the total national electric generation. In view of the energy requirements of Pennsylvania's industry and the impact of increasing energy costs on employment the Commission directed its technical staff to investigate the potential for industrial cogeneration and a pricing formula consistent with the electric utilities' costs. The Commission's technical staff has completed proposed regulations to implement the provisions of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) Section 210 concerning small power producers. The regulations incorporate suggestions from both potential producers and utilities. Staff has devised a strategy for utility purchases of energy and capacity which should be of interest to regulators in other jurisdictions, encourage potential cogenerators and satisfy utilities.

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

This thesis explores the regulatory problem of incentives and the question of how to create a regulatory framework that most nearly aligns the firm's private interests with the public good. The main themes are: (1) an efficiency loss is inherent in the regulatory relationship, as long as the regulator knows less about the firm's operations than the firm itself; and (2) regulation itself is an incentive mechanism, so that the regulator can choose how to motivate the firm but now whether to do so. An analytical model is used to show the tradeoff between inducing efficient production and efficient pricing. The thesis surveys and analyzes incentive regulation mechanisms adopted by state utility commissions, using a Washington state plan as a case study. A natural extension of incentive regulation is discussed, in which the firm's reward depends on the total gain in consumer surplus rather than just the reduction in expenditures. The ability of the regulator to commit to future actions is central to incentive regulation, as well as many other aspects of regulation.

As part of the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) Standard Review Plan Update and Development Program (SRP-UDP), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory developed a listing of industry consensus codes and standards and other government and industry guidance referred to in regulatory documents. The SRP-UDP has been completed and the SRP-Maintenance Program (SRP-MP) is now maintaining this listing. Besides updating previous information, Revision 3 adds approximately 80 citations. This listing identifies the version of the code or standard cited in the regulatory document, the regulatory document, and the current version of the code or standard. It also provides a summary characterization of the nature of the citation. This listing was developed from electronic searches of the Code of Federal Regulations and the NRC`s Bulletins, Information Notices, Circulars, Enforcement Manual, Generic Letters, Inspection Manual, Policy Statements, Regulatory Guides, Standard Technical Specifications and the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800).

This report describes the technical support EPRI provided to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Decommissioning Working Group in 2000. It includes the material supplied to the NEI for their use in generating comments on behalf of the nuclear energy industry concerning the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission's (NRC) new draft regulations on decommissioning.

This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This document reports the position and recommendations of the NRC Piping Review Committee, Task Group on Seismic Design. The Task Group considered overlapping conservation in the various steps of seismic design, the effects of using two levels of earthquake as a design criterion, and current industry practices. Issues such as damping values, spectra modification, multiple response spectra methods, nozzle and support design, design margins, inelastic piping response, and the use of snubbers are addressed. Effects of current regulatory requirements for piping design are evaluated, and recommendations for immediate licensing action, changes in existing requirements, and research programs are presented. Additional background information and suggestions given by consultants are also presented.

The utility industry and its regulatory environment are at a crossroads. Utilities, intervenors and even public utility commissions are no longer able to initiate and sustain changes unilaterally. Traditional approaches to regulation are often contentious and costly, producing results that are not perceived as legitimate or practical. Consensus building and alternative dispute resolution have the potential to help utilities, intervenors and regulators resolve a host of regulatory issues. This book traces the decline of consensus in utility regulation and delineates current controversies. It presents the theory and practice of alternative dispute resolution in utility regulation and offers a framework for evaluating the successes and failures of attempts to employ these processes. Four regulatory cases are analyzed in detail: the Pilgrim nuclear power plant outage settlement, the use of DSM collaboratives, the New Jersey resource bidding policy and the formation of integrated resource management rules in Massachusetts.

Awareness of the environmental consequences of electricity production have led many state public utility commissions (PUC) to consider these externalities formally in their regulation of utilities. At the request of NARUC`s Energy Conservation staff subcommittee, the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory conducted a survey to identify the extent and range of PUC approaches to this issue; responses were obtained from PUC staff in 49 states and the District of Columbia. The study should be viewed as providing a ``snapshot`` of regulatory developments in an area that is evolving rapidly. 16 refs.

Awareness of the environmental consequences of electricity production have led many state public utility commissions (PUC) to consider these externalities formally in their regulation of utilities. At the request of NARUC's Energy Conservation staff subcommittee, the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory conducted a survey to identify the extent and range of PUC approaches to this issue; responses were obtained from PUC staff in 49 states and the District of Columbia. The study should be viewed as providing a snapshot'' of regulatory developments in an area that is evolving rapidly. 16 refs.

with California's coastal power plant fleet; 3) biological resource issues associated with solar thermal.......................................................................23 CHAPTER 3: Cooling Water Use at New Power Plants Subject to Energy Commission Jurisdiction Cooling Water Trends for California Power Plants

Decommissioning of commercial nuclear power plants (NPPs) must be safe and cost-effective and consider the needs of a wide range of stakeholders. The creative tension among these objectives has provided opportunities to reform the way these plants are regulated and managed in decommissioning. Enlightened and visionary leaders from the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) and industry are seizing these opportunities to create new paradigms for risk-informed regulation; creative stakeholder involvement; and effective, end-state focused, license termination planning.

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

As part of the US Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) Standard Review Plan Update and Development Program, Pacific Northwest Laboratory developed a listing of industry consensus codes and standards and other government and industry guidance referred to in regulatory documents. In addition to updating previous information, Revision 1 adds citations from the NRC Inspection Manual and the Improved Standard Technical Specifications. This listing identifies the version of the code or standard cited in the regulatory document, the regulatory document, and the current version of the code or standard. It also provides a summary characterization of the nature of the citation. This listing was developed from electronic searches of the Code of Federal Regulations and the NRC`s Bulletins, Information Notices, Circulars, Generic Letters, Policy Statements, Regulatory Guides, and the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800).

Disposal costs for liquid PCB radioactive waste are among the highest of any category of regulated waste. The high cost is driven by the fact that disposal options are extremely limited. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulations require most liquids with PCBs at concentration of {ge} 50 parts-per-million to be disposed by incineration or equivalent destructive treatment. Disposal fees can be as high as $200 per gallon. This figure does not include packaging and the cost to transport the waste to the disposal facility, or the waste generator's labor costs for managing the waste prior to shipment. Minimizing the generation of liquid radioactive PCB waste is therefore a significant waste management challenge. PCB spill cleanups often generate large volumes of waste. That is because the removal of PCBs typically requires the liberal use of industrial solvents followed by a thorough rinsing process. In a nuclear facility, the cleanup process may be complicated by the presence of radiation and other occupational hazards. Building design and construction features, e.g., the presence of open grating or trenches, may also complicate cleanup. In addition to the technical challenges associated with spill cleanup, selection of the appropriate regulatory requirements and approach may be challenging. The TSCA regulations include three different sections relating to the cleanup of PCB contamination or spills. EPA has also promulgated a separate guidance policy for fresh PCB spills that is published as Subpart G of 40 CFR 761 although it is not an actual regulation. Applicability is based on the circumstances of each contamination event or situation. Other laws or regulations may also apply. Identification of the allowable regulatory options is important. Effective communication with stakeholders, particularly regulators, is just as important. Depending on the regulatory path that is taken, cleanup may necessitate the generation of large quantities of regulated waste. Allowable options must be evaluated carefully in order to reduce compliance risks, protect personnel, limit potential negative impacts on facility operations, and minimize the generation of wastes subject to TSCA. This paper will identify critical factors in selecting the appropriate TSCA regulatory path in order to minimize the generation of radioactive PCB waste and reduce negative impacts to facilities. The importance of communicating pertinent technical issues with facility staff, regulatory personnel, and subsequently, the public, will be discussed. Key points will be illustrated by examples from five former production reactors at the DOE Savannah River Site. In these reactors a polyurethane sealant was used to seal piping penetrations in the biological shield walls. During the intense neutron bombardment that occurred during reactor operation, the sealant broke down into a thick, viscous material that seeped out of the piping penetrations over adjacent equipment and walls. Some of the walls were painted with a PCB product. PCBs from the paint migrated into the degraded sealant, creating PCB 'spill areas' in some of these facilities. The regulatory cleanup approach selected for each facility was based on its operational status, e.g., active, inactive or undergoing decommissioning. The selected strategies served to greatly minimize the generation of radioactive liquid PCB waste. It is expected that this information would be useful to other DOE sites, DOD facilities, and commercial nuclear facilities constructed prior to the 1979 TSCA ban on most manufacturing and uses of PCBs.

This report is one of a series of preliminary reports describing the laws and regulatory programs of the United States and each of the 50 states affecting the siting and operation of energy generating facilities likely to be used in Integrated Community Energy Systems (ICES). Public utility regulatory statutes, energy facility siting programs, and municipal franchising authority are examined to identify how they may impact on the ability of an organization, whether or not it be a regulated utility, to construct and operate an ICES. This report describes laws and regulatory programs in the United States. Subsequent reports will (1) describe public utility rate regulatory procedures and practices as they might affect an ICES, (2) analyze each of the aforementioned regulatory programs to identify impediments to the development of ICES, and (3) recommend potential changes in legislation and regulatory practices and procedures to overcome such impediments.

The US Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) periodically surveys the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC) and state regulatorycommissions that regulate utility owners of nuclear power plants. The NRC is interested in identifying states that have established economic or performance incentive programs applicable to nuclear power plants, how the programs are being implemented, and in determining the financial impact of the programs on the utilities. The NRC interest stems from the fact that such programs have the potential to adversely affect the safety of nuclear power plants. The current report is an update of NUREG/CR-5975, Incentive Regulation of Investor-Owned Nuclear Power Plants by Public Utility Regulators, published in January 1993. The information in this report was obtained from interviews conducted with each state regulatory agency that administers an incentive program and each utility that owns at least 10% of an affected nuclear power plant. The agreements, orders, and settlements that form the basis for each incentive program were reviewed as required. The interviews and supporting documentation form the basis for the individual state reports describing the structure and financial impact of each incentive program.

of the Enron Debtors Â­ Enron Corp., Enron Power Marketing, Inc., Enron North America, Enron Energy Marketing marks continued progress toward resolution of the Western power market crisis of 2000-2001. Information on other settlements related to the western energy markets may be found on the FERC website at http://www

1000 was designed by Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC, and has been formally approved by NRC. See, and show that the member has authorized the organization to intervene on his or her behalf. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-00-20, 52 NRC 151, 163 (2000). B. Ruling

the proposed action quite obviously entails an increased potential for offsite consequences. Instead by nuclear power plants operating in or proposed for Maryland.@ Id. at 1-2. NIRS explains miles of the proposed reactor. She further recounts that she is Aparticularly 21 See Shaw AREVA MOX

Applications International Applications (SAIC) technical and quality program files associated with the development of the draft NUREG. The CNWRA also reviewed the SAIC spreadsheet calculations for analyses used in the draft NUREG. These calculations were transmitted by the NRC to the CNWRA on compact disks The enclosed report includes changes to our previous document (Deliverable 08801.081.001) in response to Reference I and subsequent interactions between the CNWRA and NRC staffs. /7-Washington Office  Twinbrook Metro Plaza #210

REGION I REGION I 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 194061415 Docket No. 040-07123 JUL. 19 '996 License No. SUB-748 (Retired) United States -Department of Energy O ffice of EnvironmentalRestoration ATTN: W. Alexander Williams, Ph.D. EM-241 Cloverleaf Building 19901 Germantown Road Germantown, Maryland 20874-1290 SUBJECT: NL INDUSTRIES, ALBANY, NEW YORK Dear Dr. Williams: We are aware that DOE is responsible for the former National Lead Company (NL Industries) facility near Albany, New York. During a recent review of retired AEC License No. SUB-748, we found records which provide additional information concerning the use of source material at the facility. Copies of AEC documents which describe activities at that facility are enclosed. License No. SUB-00748 authorized possession of 38,000 pounds of uranium during

This article is about What is and What ought to be as we look to the institution of public utility commissionregulation at the turn of the century. To signal my own view at the outset, I find the prospects somewhat worrisome in light of the nature and direction of much of the response to real and imaginary changes in the regulated sectors. I surely do not call for standing in place, but I strongly believe we should leave the place standing. The following items are discernable trends that will shape the PUC at the turn-of-the century: (1) dichotomy of customers into core and noncore groups, (2) unbundling and new service offerings with a menu of prices, (3) relaxed regulation and increased reliance on market solutions instead of command and control, (4) increased use of market-based pricing and incentive ratemaking, (5) large users seeking lowest-cost generation and supply services, (6) shift from old regulatory bargains regarding exclusive territorial franchises and assured recovery of costs and investments, (7) utility diversification, (8) increasing business risk for utilities, amd (9) uncertainty as to continued utility attention to social goals and a changing obligation to serve. For each of these, the author focuses on: (1) changing missions and roles of the PUC, (2) the strategies for achieving them, and (3) the implementation requirements that operationalize the strategies.

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

Labor Commission Labor Commission Jump to: navigation, search Name Utah Labor Commission Address 160 East 300 South, 3rd Floor Place Salt Lake City, Utah Zip 84114-6600 Phone number (801) 530-6800 Website http://laborcommission.utah.go References Website[1] This article is a stub. You can help OpenEI by expanding it. Utah Labor Commission is an organization based in Salt Lake City, Utah. The Utah Labor Commission is the regulatory agency responsible for preserving the balance established by the legislature for protecting the health, safety, and economic well-being of employees and employers. It is a multi-division state agency directed by a Commissioner who is appointed by the Governor. The Commissioner oversees the various functions of the divisions within the Commission.

The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) Program Management System Manual requires preparation of the OCRWM Regulatory Guidance Document (RGD) that addresses licensing, environmental compliance, and safety and health compliance. The document provides: regulatory compliance policy; guidance to OCRWM organizational elements to ensure a consistent approach when complying with regulatory requirements; strategies to achieve policy objectives; organizational responsibilities for regulatory compliance; guidance with regard to Program compliance oversight; and guidance on the contents of a project-level Regulatory Compliance Plan. The scope of the RGD includes site suitability evaluation, licensing, environmental compliance, and safety and health compliance, in accordance with the direction provided by Section 4.6.3 of the PMS Manual. Site suitability evaluation and regulatory compliance during site characterization are significant activities, particularly with regard to the YW MSA. OCRWM`s evaluation of whether the Yucca Mountain site is suitable for repository development must precede its submittal of a license application to the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC). Accordingly, site suitability evaluation is discussed in Chapter 4, and the general statements of policy regarding site suitability evaluation are discussed in Section 2.1. Although much of the data and analyses may initially be similar, the licensing process is discussed separately in Chapter 5. Environmental compliance is discussed in Chapter 6. Safety and Health compliance is discussed in Chapter 7.

Empirical studies on the effectiveness of workplace safety regulations are inconclusive. This study hypothesizes that the asynchronous effects of safety regulations occur because regulations need time to become effective. Safety regulations will work initially by reducing the most serious accidents, and later by improving overall safety performance. The hypothesis is tested by studying a provincial level aggregate panel dataset for China's coal industry using two different models with different sets of dependent variables: a fixed-effects model on mortality rate, which is defined as fatalities per 1,000 employees; and a negative binominal model on the annual number (frequency) of disastrous accidents. Safety regulations can reduce the frequency of disastrous accidents, but have not reduced mortality rate, which represents overall safety performance. Policy recommendations are made, including shifting production from small to large mines through industrial consolidation, improving the safety performance of large mines, addressing consequences of decentralization, and facilitating the implementation of regulations through carrying on institutional actions and supporting legislation.

Natural Gas Regulation - Other Gas-Related Information Sources Natural Gas Regulation - Other Gas-Related Information Sources Natural Gas Regulation - Other Gas-Related Information Sources The single largest source of energy information available is the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA). The EIA publishes extensive reports on natural gas and other energy sources. Domestic natural gas markets are regulated in part by the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission. The commission's chief area of concern is the interstate natural gas market. Natural gas moves for the most part by pipeline in the United States. The safety of those pipelines is the concern of the Department of Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety. In Canada the regulation of interprovincial and international natural gas is the responsibility of the National Energy Board. Their areas of

During the past several years, numerous large prudence case disallowances have occurred throughout the United States. Many of these cases concerned the construction of large nuclear facilities. Disallowances occurred despite the presence of incentive mechanisms that were used by various state public utility commissions. The regulatory model used during that period assumed that incentives were useful. Incentives were often viewed, however, as an exploratory exercise that might provide benefits. Still, the real mechanism used to protect ratepayers was the classical prudence case. And, as we saw during the 1980s, such cases were frequently used to prohibit utilities from passing unreasonable costs on to ratepayers. To avoid the system breakdowns and the resulting prudence cases, utilities and regulators must develop incentives that affect utilities' behavior to provide an optimal level of safe and adequate service at the lowest reasonable cost. If the incentives are simply viewed as an exotic regulatory mechanism, without being properly understood and implemented from an operational perspective at the utilities, they may not produce the desired outcome. In some instances they may be irrelevant to the final result. Several relatively new incentive mechanisms are promising. These include incentives that provide utilities with increased profits for implementing good customer-service programs or for achieving good performance in demand-side management (DSM) programs. Those incentives usually link a monetary reward or penalty in the form of a change to the earned rate of return to specific actions, such as the customer complaint rate for the utility or its success in installing certain DSM devices. These are promising because they relate to discrete events that can be easily understood by utility management and measured by regulators.

the state board to adopt a schedule of fees to be paid by regulated sources of greenhouse gas emissions compliance schedule, alternative control technology, a process change, or a product substitution. (c) "Carbon sources or categories of sources, subject to the criteria and schedules set forth in this part. #12;Text

CommissioningCommissioningCommissioning October 16, 2013 - 4:43pm Addthis Project Construction Commissioning Operations & Maintenance Commissioning renewable energy for new construction projects and major renovations requires special consideration in selecting the commissioning agent and team, developing the specifications, conducting the full commissioning process, and integrating measurement and verification (M&V) systems. Commissioning can reduce overall costs related to construction deficiencies and ensure more efficient building and systems operation. For new construction projects or major renovations with renewable energy systems, commissioning is critical to the ultimate goal of operating all building systems as safely, optimally, and efficiently as their designers intended.

On July 1, 1993, a Regulatory Oversight (RO) organization was established within the United States Department of Energy (DOE), Oak Ridge Operations (ORO) to provide regulatory oversight of the DOE uranium enrichment facilities leased to the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC). The purpose of the RO program was to ensure continued plant safety, safeguards and security while the Paducah and Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs) transitioned to regulatory oversight by the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC). These activities were performed under the authority of the lease agreement between DOE and USEC until NRC issued a Certificate of Compliance or approved a Compliance Plan pursuant to Section 1701 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and assumed regulatory responsibility. This report chronicles the formal development, operation and key activities of the RO organization from its beginning in July 1993, until the turnover of the regulatory oversight responsibility to the NRC on March 3, 1997. Through its evolution to closure, the RO program was a formal, proceduralized effort designed to provide consistent regulation and to facilitate transition to NRC. The RO Program was also a first-of-a-kind program for DOE. The process, experience, and lessons learned summarized herein should be useful as a model for transition of other DOE facilities to privatization or external regulation.

The US Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) periodically surveys the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC) and state regulatorycommissions that regulate utility owners of nuclear power plants. The NRC is interested in identifying states that have established economic or performance incentive programs applicable to nuclear power plants, including states with new programs, how the programs are being implemented, and in determining the financial impact of the programs on the utilities. The NRC interest stems from the fact that such programs have the potential to adversely affect the safety of nuclear power plants. The information in this report was obtained from interviews conducted with each state regulatory agency that administers an incentive program and each utility that owns at least 10% of an affected nuclear power plant. The agreements, orders, and settlements that form the basis for each incentive program were reviewed as required. The interviews and supporting documentation form the basis for the individual state reports describing the structure and financial impact of each incentive program.

that are the basis of potential revenue. The pressures for transmission expansion and the option of merchant or private initiative investment are causing the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC) to reconsider its traditional open access transmission... policy. (FERC 2011a) EU regulators too, faced with ineffective unbundling and insufficient new interconnectors, are allowing incumbent transcos exemption from EC rules on third party access in order to encourage investment. De Hauteclocque and Rious...

Historically, the electric utility industry has been regarded as one of the most open industries in the United States in sharing information but their reputation is being challenged by competitive energy providers, the general public, regulators, and other stakeholders. As the prospect of competition among electricity power providers has increased in recent years, many utilities have been requesting that the data they submit to their utility regulatorycommissions remain confidential. Withholding utility information from the public is likely to have serious and significant policy implications with respect to: (1) consumer education, the pursuit of truth, mutual respect among parties, and social cooperation; (2) the creation of a fair market for competitive energy services; (3) the regulatory balance; (4) regional and national assessments of energy-savings opportunities; (5) research and development; and (6) evaluations of utility programs, plans, and policies. In a telephone survey of all public utility commissions (PUCs) that regulate electric and gas utilities in the U.S., we found that almost all PUCs have received requests from utility companies for data to be filed as confidential, and confidential data filings appear to have increased (both in scope and in frequency) in those states where utility restructuring is being actively discussed. The most common types of data submitted as confidential by utilities dealt with specific customer data, market data, avoided costs, and utility costs.

The SUSTELNET project is supported by the European Commission under the 5 th RTD Framework Programme within the thematic programme Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development  under the contract No. ENK5-CT2001-00577. The report is registered under ECN project number 7.7396. This document or any other document produced within the SUSTELNET project does not represent the opinion of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission, nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission, is responsible for the use that might be made of the information arising from the SUSTELNET project.

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

I(S.0 -01: I(S.0 -01: SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL LlCEWSE Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 1, Part 70, "Special Nuclear Material Regulations," o. license is hereby issued authorizing the licensee to receive and possess the special nuclear material designated below; to use such special nuclear material for the purpose(s) and at the place(s) designated below; and to transfer such material to persons' authorized to receive it in accordance with the regulations in said Port. This license shall be deemed to contain the conditions specified in Section 70.32(a) of said regulations, and is subject to all applicable rules, regtdations, and orders of the Atomic Energy Commission now or hereafter in

The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission has proposed amending its regulations regarding embrittlement of pressure vessels in commercial nuclear power reactors. The amendments, which include clarifying the pressurized thermal shock requirements, changing the fracture toughness requirements and establishing new requirements for thermal annealing of a reactor pressure vessel, were prompted in part by NRC`s 1990 inspection of the reactor pressure vessel at the Yankee Rowe nuclear plant in Massachusetts. NRC`s proposed changes would establish a screening criterion for both the rate of irradiation embrittlement or RPV materials and fracture toughness, above which a plant cannot continue to be operated safely.

Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (Multiple States) Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (Multiple States) Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (Multiple States) < Back Eligibility Commercial Construction Industrial Investor-Owned Utility Local Government Municipal/Public Utility Rural Electric Cooperative Systems Integrator Tribal Government Utility Savings Category Water Buying & Making Electricity Home Weatherization Program Info State District of Columbia Program Type Environmental Regulations Siting and Permitting Provider Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin's (ICPRB) mission is to enhance, protect, and conserve the water and associated land resources of the Potomac River and its tributaries through regional and interstate

Radioactive materials transportation is stringently regulated by the Department of Transportation and the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission to protect the public and the environment. As a Federal agency, however, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) must seek State, Tribal and local input on safety issues for certain transportation activities. This interaction has invariably resulted in the imposition of extra-regulatory requirements, greatly increasing transportation costs and delaying schedules while not significantly enhancing the level of safety. This paper discusses the results an analysis of the regulatory and negotiated requirements established for a July 1998 shipment of spent nuclear fuel from foreign countries through the west coast to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). Staff from the INEEL Nuclear Materials Engineering and Disposition Department undertook the analysis in partnership with HMTC, to discover if there were instances where requirements derived from stakeholder interactions duplicate, contradict, or otherwise overlap with regulatory requirements. The study exhaustively lists and classifies applicable Department of Transportation (DOT) and Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) regulations. These are then compared with a similarly classified list of requirements from the Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and those developed during stakeholder negotiations. Comparison and analysis reveals numerous attempts to reduce transportation risk by imposing more stringent safety measures than those required by DOT and NRC. These usually took the form of additional inspection, notification and planning requirements. There are also many instances of overlap with, and duplication of regulations. Participants will gain a greater appreciation for the need to understand the risk-oriented basis of the radioactive materials regulations and their effectiveness in ensuring safety when negotiating extra-regulatory requirements.

CommissionCommission Division of Licensing and Regulation Washington 25, D. C. .I,.----- Attention: Mr. Eber R. Price Gentlemen: ' B?&-# This is in response to your letter of 17 April 1962 regarding the inspection conducted at our Jayhawk Works at Pittsburg, Kansas on May 2-5, 1961 under Source Material License C-4352 and Special Nuclear Material Licenses No. S&l-154 and SNM-329. Replying to your items as listed in your letter, we submit the following in- formation'for your consideration: I. Time-occupancy studies have been made in the area where high air-borne dust samples were observed. A. I&dents Involving Thorium Six incidents have been noted involving thorium, natural isotopic CLSS5.Y. follows: The counts of the air samples in these six samples are as

CommissionCommission Division of Licensing and Regulation Washington 25, D. C. Attention: Mr. Eber R. Price Gentlemen: This is in response to your letter of 17 April 1962 regarding the inspection conducted at our Jayhawk Works at Pittsburg, Kansas on May Z-5, 1961 under Source Material License C-4352 and Special Nuclear Material Licenses No. SW-154 and S.Iw-329. Reblying to your items as listed in your letter, we submit the following in- formation'for your consideration: I. Time-occupancy studies have been made in the area where high air-borne dust samples "ere observed. A. Incidents Involving Thorium Six incidents have bee" noted involving thorium, natural isotopic ClSS=y. The counts of the air samples in these six samples are as follows: Microcuries per ml of Air

The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) monitors incentive programs established by state regulators in order to obtain current information and to consider the potential safety effects of the incentive programs as applied to nuclear units. The current report is an update of NUREG/CR-5509, Incentive Regulation of Nuclear Power Plants by State Public Utility Commissions, published in December 1989. The information in this report was obtained from interviews conducted with each state regulator and each utility with a minimum entitlement of 10%. The agreements, orders, and settlements from which each incentive program was implemented were reviewed as required. The interviews and supporting documentation form the basis for the individual state reports describing the structure and financial impact of each incentive program. The programs currently in effect represent the adoption of an existing nuclear performance incentive program proposal and one new program. In addition, since 1989 a number of nuclear units have been included in one existing program; while one program was discontinued and another one concluded. 6 refs., 27 tabs.

This paper examines regulatory governance in the context of African telecommunications. Though there is already a substantial literature devoted to the regulatory practices in developing countries, it generally conceptualizes the quality of regulation ... Keywords: Africa, Development, Paradox of plenty, Regulatory governance, Resource curse, Telecommunications regulation

Regulatory Compliance Regulatory Compliance Regulatory Compliance This photo shows the inside the K West Basin facility, where workers are retrieving highly radioactive sludge material under 17 feet of water. This photo shows the inside the K West Basin facility, where workers are retrieving highly radioactive sludge material under 17 feet of water. The Department of Energy is not a regulatory agency; however it does self-regulate its own radioactive waste. DOE is also affected by a variety of statutes, legislation, regulations, directives and guidance. Many of the current compliance-related actions revolve around waste and material disposition. These include National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Impact Statements and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Records of Decision. Links, below,

The Regulatory Facility Guide (RFG) has been developed for the DOE and contractor facilities located in the state of Ohio. It provides detailed compilations of international, federal, and state transportation-related regulations applicable to shipments originating at destined to Ohio facilities. This RFG was developed as an additional resource tool for use both by traffic managers who must ensure that transportation operations are in full compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements and by oversight personnel who must verify compliance activities.

This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the theoretical and empirical literature on the regulation of natural monopolies. It covers alternative definitions of natural monopoly, regulatory goals, alternative ...

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

Retro-Commissioning Retro-Commissioning (RCx) FUPWG Meeting 20 October, 2010 RCx In UESC Contracts ï” Put RCx in Delivery Orders ï” Clear Scope of Work ï” Specify kW per Ton on Completion ï” State the Current Condition of the Equipment ï” State the Expected Performance in the Delivery Orders and Get the Contractor to Agree Up-Front ï” Don't Hire a Contractor that has Never Done Commissioning ï” Hire a Commissioning Agent ï” This Can Be Expensive What We Do at SCE ï” We Commission Everything ï” We ReCommission Everything to Some Degree ï” San Bernardino Story Up Front ï” You must review and approve the construction scope, budget, and schedule including all RCx activities BEFORE work begins at site ï” Use Pre-Established Guidelines (FEMP

Process Process Commissioning Process October 16, 2013 - 4:44pm Addthis The commissioning process is designed to verify that a renewable energy project meets specified agency design, performance, and operational requirements. To ensure that the level and focus of commissioning efforts are appropriate to the scope and complexity of the project, the commissioning planning process should begin at the same time as the design phase of the project. Integrating Commissioning Into the Design Process Developing a Detailed Commissioning Plan Testing Systems and Providing Commissioning Reports Performing Enhanced Commissioning Delivering Final Documentation Integrating Commissioning Into the Design Process The commissioning agent should attend design team meetings, review the

Transportation and distribution of natural gas in Mexico are undergoing fundamental changes as a result of the 1995 passage by the Congress of Mexico of the law that created the Energy RegulatoryCommission (Comision Reguladora de Energia--CRE). The law mandates that the commission must achieve a competitive, efficient, safe, and sustainable gas industry, allowing the country to make the difficult energy transition to open gas and electricity markets relying on cleaner fuels. The paper discusses the situation before CRE, the regulatory framework, market development, and the North American market.

funding provided by participating member commissions of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). The views and opinions of the authors do not necessarily state or reflect the views, opinions, or policies of the NRRI, the NARUC, or NARUC member commissions. EXECUTIVE SUM:MARY Transportation accounted for about 36 percent of the total net energy consumed in the United States in 1991 with petroleum the overwhelming choice (96 percent) among the various types of fuel. In recent years, the use of petroleum in transportation alone has exceeded domestic petroleum production. Transportation is also a major contributor to the increase in urban air pollution and greenhouse gases. Consequently, the development of vehicles powered by fuels other than petroleum is viewed as a promising approach in enhancing energy security and environmental protection. The focus of this study is to identify state regulatory actions that are conducive to the extensive use of natural gas as a vehicular fuel. This study concludes that natural gas refueling stations should not be regulated as a public utility, that a local distribution company should be allowed to participate in the refueling market only under strict state

FOSFAs John Hancock reviews three major areas of regulation of the global trading of oils and fats. Regulatory issues associated with the international oils & fats trade Inform Magazine Inform Archives Regulatory issues associated with the interna

California State Review by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission recommends state and regional water boards issue requirements to all pits subject to basin plans and chapter 15. Resources shortfalls have kept production pits from being Water Board priorities. Threat of United States EPA designation of crude oil as hazardous waste and subsequent land use conflicts of buried pits in developing areas have led to the call for full implementation of State regulations. Recommended state improvements include (1) interagency communication, cross training, computer database, and inspections; (2) development of guidance documents and consistency in pit closure policy, permitting, water quality in DOG pit rules, land spreading, road spreading, and minimum construction and operation requirements and; (3) administratively finding additional resources to fully implement requirements, increase records retention time, consider compliance history, revise Water Board/DOG Memorandum of Understanding and adjust DOG financial assurance program to provide incentive for proper and timely well plugging and site reclamation. Industry/Regulatory Agency cooperation can significantly reduce the burden of regulation implementation, Industry willingness to pay appropriate regulatory fees can facilitate regulation execution. Field drilling crew education can minimize regulatory implementation costs. Mud pit Resource Conservation and Recovery Act exemption can be maintained if hazardous substances (e.g., pipe dope and solvents) are kept out of the pit.

Current drafts of proposed standards and suggested State regulations for control and release of technologically-enhanced naturally-occurring radioactive material (TENORM), and standards for release of volumetrically-contaminated material in the US are reviewed. These are compared to the recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) Safety Series and the European Commission (EC) proposals. Past regulatory efforts with respect to TENORM in the US dealt primarily with oil-field related wastes. Currently, nine states (AK, GA, LA, MS, NM, OH, OR SC, TX) have specific regulations pertaining to TENORM, mostly based on uranium mill tailings cleanup criteria. The new US proposals are dose- or risk-based, as are the IAEA and EC recommendations, and are grounded in the linear no threshold hypothesis (LNT). TENORM wastes involve extremely large volumes, particularly scrap metal and mine wastes. Costs to control and dispose of these wastes can be considerable. The current debate over the validity of LNT at low doses and low dose rates is particularly germane to this discussion. Most standards setting organizations and regulatory agencies base their recommendations on the LNT. The US Environmental Protection Agency has released a draft Federal Guidance Report that recommends calculating health risks from low-level exposure to radionuclides based on the LNT. However, some scientific and professional organizations are openly questioning the validity of LNT and its basis for regulations, practices, and costs to society in general. It is not clear at this time how a non-linear regulatory scheme would be implemented.

The LHCb experiment is dedicated to precision measurements of CP violation and rare decays of B hadrons at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. The LHCb installation has been finished in spring 2008 and an intensive testing and commissioning of the system has been started. An overview and the results from our commissioning activities are described.

Introduction Introduction Chapter 1 Chapter 1 Introduction Introduction B uilding commissioning has often been likened to commissioning of a ship, where the Owners thor- oughly verify and prove the func- tional performance of all parts - engines, compasses, sonar, radar, radio, generators, potable water systems, and so on - under all pos- sible conditions and as a condition of acceptance before placing the ship in service. And where the Owner checks the presence of sys- tem operating and procedures manuals and the availability of up- to-date navigation charts. And where the crew has been properly and thoroughly trained on the ship's systems' operations and emergency procedures. Commissioning is not new - ships and aircraft have been commissioned for years. Building commissioning has

Introduction Introduction Chapter 1 Chapter 1 Introduction Introduction B uilding commissioning has often been likened to commissioning of a ship, where the Owners thor- oughly verify and prove the func- tional performance of all parts - engines, compasses, sonar, radar, radio, generators, potable water systems, and so on - under all pos- sible conditions and as a condition of acceptance before placing the ship in service. And where the Owner checks the presence of sys- tem operating and procedures manuals and the availability of up- to-date navigation charts. And where the crew has been properly and thoroughly trained on the ship's systems' operations and emergency procedures. Commissioning is not new - ships and aircraft have been commissioned for years. Building commissioning has

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

Delaware River Basin Commission (Multiple States) Delaware River Basin Commission (Multiple States) Delaware River Basin Commission (Multiple States) < Back Eligibility Utility Commercial Agricultural Investor-Owned Utility State/Provincial Govt Industrial Construction Municipal/Public Utility Local Government Installer/Contractor Rural Electric Cooperative Tribal Government Systems Integrator Savings Category Water Buying & Making Electricity Home Weatherization Program Info Start Date 1961 State Delaware Program Type Environmental Regulations Siting and Permitting Provider Project Review Section The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) is a federal-interstate compact government agency that was formed by concurrent legislation enacted in 1961 by the United States and the four basin states (Pennsylvania, New York, New

: : Commissioning the Building Commissioning Process Overview Commissioning Activities and Documentation LANL | Chapter 9 Commissioning the Building Commissioning Process Overview Commissioning is a process - a systematic process of ensuring that a building performs in accordance with the design intent, contract documents, and the owner's operational needs. Commissioning is fundamental to the success of the whole-building design process. Due to the sophistication of building designs and the com- plexity of building systems constructed today, commis- sioning is necessary, but not automatically included as part of the typical design and contracting process. Commissioning is critical for ensuring that the building design is successfully constructed and operated.

The purpose of this study was to assess the connection between current FAA regulations and the incorporation of Health Management (HM) systems into commercial aircraft. To address the overall objectives ARINC (1) investigated FAA regulatory guidance, ...

AOCS Technical Director Richard Cantrill attended recent meetings of two Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) committees that deal with issues of interest to the fats and oils industry. Topics discussed included work to update the standard on named vegeta

Service Service Jump to: navigation, search Dictionary.png Regulation Service The process whereby one Balancing Authority contracts to provide corrective response to all or a portion of the ACE of another Balancing Authority. The Balancing Authority providing the response assumes the obligation of meeting all applicable control criteria as specified by NERC for itself and the Balancing Authority for which it is providing the Regulation Service.[1] View on Wikipedia Wikipedia Definition According to Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, Demand Response (DR) is defined as: "Changes in electric usage by end-use customers from their normal consumption patterns in response to changes in the price of electricity over time, or to incentive payments designed to induce lower

Public Utilities Commission Public Utilities Commission Address 505 Van Ness Avenue Place San Francisco, California Zip 94102 Phone number 415-703-2782 Website http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/puc/ References CPUC Website[1] This article is a stub. You can help OpenEI by expanding it. California Public Utilities Commission is an organization based in San Francisco, California. The CPUC regulates privately owned electric, natural gas, telecommunications, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation companies, in addition to authorizing video franchises. Our five Governor-appointed Commissioners, as well as our staff, are dedicated to ensuring that consumers have safe, reliable utility service at reasonable rates, protecting against fraud, and promoting the health of California's economy.

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (hereafter CAAA) have created a market-based mechanism that is designed to employ a profit-oriented incentive to enable electric utilities to reduce SO{sub 2} emissions at the least cost. One of the most important challenges facing state regulatory utility commissions in the next decade is the integration of this marker-based profit-incentive process into the traditional rate-base, rate-of-return, profit-control approach to regulation. How the struggle to meld two potentially contradictory control and incentive programs will be resolved remains to be seen. As of now, it is an open question. The purpose of this paper is to help clarify some of the issues that need to be addressed and to offer some policy recommendations that will allow regulators to employ the effectiveness of market forces while they still retain overall control of the evolution of the regulated electric supply market.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (hereafter CAAA) have created a market-based mechanism that is designed to employ a profit-oriented incentive to enable electric utilities to reduce SO{sub 2} emissions at the least cost. One of the most important challenges facing state regulatory utility commissions in the next decade is the integration of this marker-based profit-incentive process into the traditional rate-base, rate-of-return, profit-control approach to regulation. How the struggle to meld two potentially contradictory control and incentive programs will be resolved remains to be seen. As of now, it is an open question. The purpose of this paper is to help clarify some of the issues that need to be addressed and to offer some policy recommendations that will allow regulators to employ the effectiveness of market forces while they still retain overall control of the evolution of the regulated electric supply market.

Commissioning Team Commissioning Team Commissioning Team October 16, 2013 - 4:45pm Addthis Assembling a committed team is a critical part of the commissioning process for renewable energy projects. Members of the team vary based on the size, complexity, and funding mechanism used for the project at hand. The commissioning team lead is a commissioning agent, an independent agent representing the agency's interests. In addition to the commissioning agent, participants in the commissioning process can include the agency, operations and management (O&M) personnel, contractors, subcontractors, and the architectural and engineering (A&E) firm. The project energy lead should also be an active member of the commissioning team and work closely with the commissioning agent. Renewable energy projects often require a team of experts in specific

This report evaluates how the existing U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) regulatory structure and pending modifications would affect full deployment into radiologically uncontrolled areas of certain new depleted uranium (DU) uses being studied as part of the U.S. Department of Energy's DU uses research and development program. Such new DU uses include as catalysts (for destroying volatile organic compounds in off-gases from industrial processes and for hydrodesulfurization [HDS] of petroleum fuels), semiconductors (for fabricating integrated circuits, solar cells, or thermoelectric devices, especially if such articles are expected to have service in hostile environments), and electrodes (for service in solid oxide fuel cells, in photoelectrochemical cells used to produce hydrogen, and in batteries). The report describes each new DU use and provides a detailed analysis of whether any existing NRC licensing exemption or general license would be available to users of products and devices manufactured to deploy the new use. Although one existing licensing exemption was found to be possibly available for catalysts used for HDS of petroleum fuels and one general license was found to be possibly available for catalysts, semiconductors, and electrodes used in hydrogen production or batteries, existing regulations would require most users of products and devices deploying new DU uses to obtain specific source material licenses from the NRC or an Agreement State. This situation would not be improved by pending regulatory modifications. Thus, deployment of new DU uses may be limited because persons having no previous experience with NRC or Agreement State regulations may be hesitant to incur the costs and inconvenience of regulatory compliance, unless using a DU-containing product or device offers a substantial economic benefit over nonradioactive alternatives. Accordingly, estimating the risk of deploying new DU-containing products and devices in certain radiologically uncontrolled areas is recommended. If the estimated risks of such deployment are found to be acceptable, then it may be possible to justify adding new exemptions or general licenses to the NRC regulations.

(cont.) algorithm to identify the regulatory models from protein-DNA binding and gene expression data. These models to a large extent agree with the knowledge of gene regulation pertaining to the corresponding regulators. ...

This report includes issuances received during September 1996. After reviewing in detail each of the claims made in this informal proceeding the presiding officer sustained the staff of the USNRC in its determination that the applicant did not pass the written portion of his examination to become a licensed operator of a nuclear power plant. In the proceeding concerning citizen group challenges to the decommissioning plan for the Rowe Yankee power station, the licensing board grants licensee Yankee Atomic Electric Company`s motion for summary disposition.

This report includes the issuances received during this period from NRC, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards, the Administrative Law Judges, the Directors` Decisions, and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking.

Digests and indexes for issuances of the NRC, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the Administrative Law Judges, the Directors` Decisions, and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking are presented in this document. These digests and indexes are intended to serve as a guide to the issuances. Information elements common to the cases heard and ruled upon are: (1) case name, (2) full text reference, (3) issuance number, (4) issued raised by appellants, (5) legal citations, (6) name of facility and Docket number, (7) subject matter, (8) type of hearing, and (9) type of issuance.

Blade Interference Customer Guidance. In that letter GEH stated that: This determination does not apply to BWR/6 or ABWR plants or the ABWR/ESBWR Design Control Documents (DCD). Subsequent to the issuance of the reference letter, the NRC requested additional information as to the basis of this statement with regard to the applicability of this issue to the ABWR/ESBWR Design Control Documents (DCD). The following provides supporting information to address the basis for this statement: Both the ABWR and ESBWR reactivity control systems incorporate a Fine Motion Control Rod Drive (FMCRD) that is different than the Control Rod Drives supplied to the BWR/2-6. The scram pressure source is independent of RPV pressure thus the issues presented in the September 26, 2011 communication are not applicable to the ABWR or ESBWR design. The FMCRD provides hydraulicpowered rapid insertion (scram) of control rods during normal and abnormal operating conditions. The hydraulic power required for scram is provided by high pressure water stored in the individual Hydraulic Control Units (HCUs). Each HCU contains a scram accumulator charged to high pressure and the necessary valves and components to scram two FMCRDs. Upon scram valve actuation, high

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

Billing Code 6450 01-P Billing Code 6450 01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Reducing Regulatory Burden AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy. ACTION: Request for information. SUMMARY: As part of its implementation of Executive Order 13563, "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review," issued by the President on January 18, 2011, the Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking comments and information from interested parties to assist DOE in reviewing its existing regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed. The purpose of DOE's review is to make the agency's regulatory program more effective and less burdensome in achieving its regulatory objectives. DATES: Written comments and information are requested on or before 45 days after

ATF2 is a final-focus test beam line that aims to focus the low-emittance beam from the ATF damping ring to a beam size of about 37 nm, and at the same time to demonstrate nm beam stability, using numerous advanced beam diagnostics and feedback tools. The construction has been finished at the end of 2008 and the beam commissioning of ATF2 has started in December of 2008. ATF2 is constructed and commissioned by ATF international collaborations with strong US, Asian and European participation.

The ATLAS muon spectrometer consists of several major components: Monitored Drift Tubes (MDTs) for precision measurements in the bending plane of the muons, supplemented by Cathode Strip Chambers (CSC) in the high eta region; Resistive Plate Chambers (RPCs) and Thin Gap Chambers (TGCs) for trigger and second coordinate measurement in the barrel and endcap regions, respectively; an optical alignment system to track the relative positions of all chambers; and, finally, the world's largest air-core magnetic toroid system. We will describe the status and commissioning of the muon system with cosmic rays and plans for commissioning with early beams.

7.2 7.2 Commissioning Guide Commissioning Guidance for ESPCs INTRODUCTION Federal facility managers are challenged daily with maintaining existing federal building stock that is energy inefficient, requires increasing operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses, and often does not achieve the building occupant comfort needed to maintain worker productivity. Additionally, they are faced with congressionally mandated requirements to reduce energy use and O&M expenses, with little capital funding. The Super ESPC program provides a procurement mechanism to allow agencies to acquire performance-based services to implement energy efficient equipment and systems that reduce energy use and O&M expenses through projects designed, installed, financed, and

US electric utilities face fewer incentives for efficient performance than nonregulated firms that operate in competitive markets, so regulators have traditionally relied on regulatory lag and a scrutiny of costs and management procedures. Characterizing the incentive programs which have been implemented by many state regulatorycommissions as misguided, the author identifies an alternative adjustment mechanism with a potential for more effective promotion of utility performance improvements. The automatic rate adjustment mechanism (ARAM) links adjustments to cost elements recovered in a utility's rates to changes in external cost indexes for those cost elements. Ratepayers and utility shareholders would be better served by a regulatory scheme that relies on market forces, not shadow managements, to ensure efficient performance.

Integrated resource planning involves the creation of a process in which supply-side and demand-side options are integrated to create a resource mix that reliably satisfies customers' short-term and long-term energy service needs at the lowest cost. Incorporating the concept of meeting customer energy service needs entails a recognition that customers' costs must be considered along with the utility's costs in the economic analysis of energy options. As applied to gas utilities, an integrated resource plan seeks to balance cost and reliability, and should not be interpreted simply as the search for lowest commodity costs. All state commissions were surveyed to assess the current status of gas planning and demand-side management and to identify significant regulatory issues faced by commissions during the next several years. The survey was to determine the extent to which they have undertaken least-cost planning for gas utilities. The survey included the following topics: (1) status of state PUC least-cost planning regulations and practices for gas utilities; (2) type and scope ofnatural gas DSM programs in effect, includeing fuel substitution; (3) economic tests and analysis methods used to evaluate DSM programs; (4) relationship between prudence reviews of gas utility purchasing practices and integrated resource planning; and (5) key regulatory issues facing gas utilities during the next five years. 34 refs., 6 figs., 10 tabs.

The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of state regulatory practices on investor-owned electric utilities in the context of interactions among 5 variables: allowed rate of return; cost of capital; cost of electric service; price of electricity; and realized rate of return. A recursive system of 5 equations was constructed and the ordinary least-squares estimation was adopted. Data sets comprise 77 utilities in the US for 1976 and 1980. Results are: (1) allowed rate of return is principally determined by firm specific variables rather than by commission-specific variables, and the behavior of the public utility commission is adaptive; (2) high common equity ratio and a high market to book value ratio lower the cost of external capital, as proxies for financial strength and regulatory risk; (3) long-run average cost of electric service is nearly horizontal and any inter-firm difference in the cost is predominantly explained by the difference in the price of fuel that a utility plant uses; inclusion of Construction Work in Progress adversely affects the realized rate of return, not the cost or price; (4) electricity price is mostly determined by the average cost, and inter-firm differences in the allowed rate of return have little effect on the price; and (5) regulation is effective mainly in the sense that the realized rate of return is severely affected by the allowed rate of return.

Transcriptional regulation is mediated by the coordinated binding of transcription factors to the upstream region of genes. In higher eukaryotes, the binding sites of cooperating transcription factors are organized into short sequence units, called cis-regulatory ... Keywords: cis-regulatory module, probabilistic model, transcriptional regulation

Commission's system for tracking and verifying compliance with the RPS. Keywords biodiesel, biogas, biomass of biomass or biogas fuels. In addition, Section 399.12, Subdivision (g)(3), specifies that no electricity that uses a mix of natural gas and biogas injected into a gas transportation pipeline. Once WREGIS

The purpose of this Handbook is to provide guidance to the regulatory analyst to promote preparation of quality regulatory analysis documents and to implement the policies of the Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the US Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NUREG/BR-0058 Rev. 2). This Handbook expands upon policy concepts included in the NRC Guidelines and translates the six steps in preparing regulatory analyses into implementable methodologies for the analyst. It provides standardized methods of preparation and presentation of regulatory analyses, with the inclusion of input that will satisfy all backfit requirements and requirements of NRC`s Committee to Review Generic Requirements. Information on the objectives of the safety goal evaluation process and potential data sources for preparing a safety goal evaluation is also included. Consistent application of the methods provided here will result in more directly comparable analyses, thus aiding decision-makers in evaluating and comparing various regulatory actions. The handbook is being issued in loose-leaf format to facilitate revisions. NRC intends to periodically revise the handbook as new and improved guidance, data, and methods become available.

This paper provides the basis for the position that the current U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) criticality regulation is in need of revision to address problems in implementing it for the postclosure period in a geologic high-level waste repository. The authors believe that the applicant for such a facility should be able to demonstrate that postulated postclosure criticality events will not cause unacceptable risk of deleterious effects on public health and safety. In addition, the applicant should be expected to take practical and feasible measures to reduce the probability of a criticality occurring, even if (as expected) the consequences of such a criticality for repository performance and public health and safety would be negligible. This approach, while recognizing the probabilistic nature of analyses of events and conditions in the distant future, is also arguably consistent with the defense in depth concept that has been successfully applied to nuclear reactor regulation. The authors believe regulations for postclosure criticality control should support this dual approach, rather than require a deterministic prohibition of criticality as does the current rule. The existing rule seems appropriate for the preclosure period, as long as it is clearly specified to apply only to that period.

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

New Forestry Commission District Office The new Forestry Commission District office at Smithton in construction The Forestry Commission's District office at Smithton in Inverness, Scotland, covers the national fuel heating system has proved effective during the winter of 2009/10, one of the harshest in 40 years

Commissioning is the process of verifying that a building's heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and lighting systems perform correctly and efficiently. Without commissioning, system and equipment problems can result in higher than necessary utility bills and unexpected and costly equipment repairs. This report reviews the benefits of commissioning, why it is a requirement for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, and why building codes are gradually adopting commissioning activities into code.

Commissioning is the process of verifying that a building's heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and lighting systems perform correctly and efficiently. Without commissioning, system and equipment problems can result in higher than necessary utility bills and unexpected and costly equipment repairs. This report reviews the benefits of commissioning, why it is a requirement for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, and why building codes are gradually adopting commissioning activities into code.

In recent years, most new buildings have been equipped with increasingly sophisticated heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems, energy conservation equipment, lighting systems, security systems, and environmental control devices that rely on electronic control. Very frequently these systems and design features have not performed as expected. This can result in energy-efficiency losses. occupant complaints about comfort, indoor air quality problems. high operating costs, and increased liability for building owners, operators, employers, and design professionals. Building commissioning was developed in response to these concerns. Commissioning involves the examining and testing of building systems to verify aspects of the building design, ensure that the building is constructed in accordance with the contract documents, and verify that the building and its systems function according to the design intent documents. The process helps to integrate and organize the design, construction, operations, and maintenance of a building's systems to produce a healthy, comfortable, and efficient facility.

This book traces the early history of nuclear power regulation in the US. It focuses on the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the federal agency that until 1975 was primarily responsible for planning and carrying out programs to protect public health and safety from the hazards of the civilian use of nuclear energy. It also describes the role of other groups that figured significantly in the development of regulatory policies, including the congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, federal agencies other than the AEC, state governments, the nuclear industry, and scientific organizations. And it considers changes in public perceptions of and attitudes toward atomic energy and the dangers of radiation exposure. The context in which regulatory programs evolved is a rich and complex mixture of political, legislative, legal, technological, scientific, and administrative history. The basic purpose of this book is to provide the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC), which inherited responsibility for nuclear safety after Congress disbanded the AEC, and the general public with information on the historical antecedents and background of regulatory issues.

Specifications Specifications Commissioning Specifications October 16, 2013 - 4:44pm Addthis Commissioning specifications outline basic requirements of the commissioning process and detail the roles and responsibilities of each party involved. System checklists, startup requirements, and performance testing procedures are typically included in the specifications to let contractors know what standards are required during the various testing phases involved throughout the commissioning process. Since renewable energy technologies are changing and developing rapidly, it is critical to have the commissioning specifications developed by a well-informed resource with up-to-date renewable energy expertise. This resource must also have a thorough understanding of how renewable energy

Commissioning Process Commissioning Process Commissioning Process October 7, 2013 - 9:19am Addthis The commissioning process for Federal facilities generally follows a four-step process. This process holds true across all forms of commissioning and for both new and existing buildings. Step 1: Planning The planning step includes developing and agreeing upon the overall commissioning objectives and strategies, assembling the project team, and compiling and perusing building and equipment documentation. Objectives for this step include: Optimizing building operations to reduce operating costs Addressing complaints from occupants regarding air quality or comforts Creating a model facility Improving facility operations and maintenance (O&M) and reducing emergency calls. When forming the commissioning team, considerations could include

The disposition of solid materials from nuclear facilities has been a subject of public debate for several decades. The primary concern has been the potential health effects resulting from exposure to residual radioactive materials to be released for unrestricted use. These debates have intensified in the last decade as many regulated facilities are seeking viable management decisions on the disposition of the large amounts of materials potentially containing very low levels of residual radioactivity. Such facilities include the nuclear weapons complex sites managed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), commercial power plants licensed by the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC), and other materials licensees regulated by the NRC or the Agreement States. Other facilities that generate radioactive material containing naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) or technologically enhanced NORM (TENORM) are also seeking to dispose of similar materials that may be radioactively contaminated. In contrast to the facilities operated by the DOE and the nuclear power plants licensed by the NRC, NORM and TENORM facilities are regulated by the individual states. Current federal laws and regulations do not specify criteria for releasing these materials that may contain residual radioactivity of either man-made or natural origin from regulatory controls. In fact, the current regulatory scheme offers no explicit provision as to permit materials being released as ''non-radioactive'', including those that are essentially free of contamination. The only method used to date with limited success has been case-by-case evaluation and approval. In addition, there is a poorly defined and inconsistent regulatory framework for regulating NORM and TENORM. Some years ago, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) introduced the concept of clearance, that is, controlling releases of any such materials within the regulatory domain. This paper aims to clarify clearance as an important disposition option for solid materials, establish the framework and basis of release, and discuss resolutions regarding the implementation of such a disposition option.

Thank you for the invitation to participate in this distinguished gathering. I would like to briefly relate the interests of the California Energy Commission in geothermal energy. Geothermal energy is a basic component of many of our primary activities, and is expressly cited in our statutory authority, the Warren-Alquist Act (1974). Our mandates affect the geothermal industry both directly and indirectly. The Commission is responsible for 5-, 12-, and 20-year forecasts of California electricity supply and demand. These forecasts are reported in our biennial Electricity Report. These forecasts are used in various official regulatory proceedings. The primary use is in the Commission's power plant siting authority. The forecasts establish the base used to determine the need for new capacity and energy in the current planning period. The forecasts are also used in other Commission activities as well as in proceedings at the Public Utilities Commission. The 1990 Electricity Report represents a dramatic change in the way this agency balances the relative importance of price competition, environmental quality, demand management as a system resource, and the implications of continued reliance on natural gas. Generally, the Commission is grappling with the elusive and complex problems of quantifying the appropriate value to assign to external (i. e., non-market) environmental attributes of competing technologies. While we have not decisively established such values, we do believe that they do exist and that we are moving in the right direction. The adopted policies have positive long term implications for geothermal and the other renewable technologies. The Commission has been in existence since 1975 and during that time has seen the development of geothermal energy in several areas of the state. As a regulatory agency, we have authority over the construction of thermal electric plants over 50 megawatts (MW). To date the Commission has certified the construction of more than 1200 MW in the Geysers. This area is now experiencing a dramatic loss in productivity. The Commission is engaged in a cooperative effort with the parties operating in the Geysers to address the problem of resource productivity. We held a hearing to examine the causes of the decline of the geothermal steam resources and its affect on electric energy supply. An outcome of the hearing was the establishment of a Technical Advisory Committee with the responsibility of providing the Commission projections of capacity and energy under the current rates of steam decline. The Committee was also charged with examining options on efficient resource management, including research and development, testing, and analyses regarding reservoir and power plant operations.

10: "The Energy-Water Nexus: Availability and Impacts" 10: "The Energy-Water Nexus: Availability and Impacts" Speakers: Howard K. Gruenspecht, EIA Shahid Chaudhry, California Energy Commission M. Michael Hightower, Sandia National Laboratories James Richenderfer, Susquehanna River Basin Commission Jeff C. Wright, Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission [Note: Recorders did not pick up introduction of panel (see biographies for details on the panelists) or introduction of session.] Howard Gruenspecht: Okay, we're going to try to get underway here. We're still catching up on schedule from yesterday lunch, but I think we're making it back. Well, good morning, and welcome to the conference session on the Energy-Water Nexus. I'm Howard Gruenspecht, your moderator. Since it's going to be one of the last two

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

On October 15, 1982, Resource Consulting Group, Inc. (RCG), submitted a draft report to the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC) titled, Incentive Regulation in the Electric Utility Industry. The FERC distributed the draft report to more than 60 individuals and organizations who were requested to review and comment on the various proposals and recommendations outlined in the report. In response to the FERC's request, 18 organizations submitted formal review comments. This report contains reviewers comments on each of the three programs recommended. The three major incentive programs are: (1) Rate Control Incentive program (RCIP); (2) Construction Cost Control Incentive Program (CCIP); and (3) Automatic Rate Adjustment Mechanism (ARAM).

Mason Emnett Mason Emnett Office of Energy Policy and Innovation Jonathan First Office of the General Counsel February 6, 2013 NOTE: Comments herein do not represent the views of the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission or its Commissioners Regulatory Considerations for Developing Generation Projects on Federal Lands 2 Purpose of this Presentation * Describe the types of transactions that fall under FERC jurisdiction * Describe pertinent federal laws and how they apply - What does it mean to be a "public utility" or "transmitting utility" under federal law? - How does ownership and usage of a generation facility impact regulatory considerations? - When are parties required to register with NERC? 3 FERC-Related Statutes * Federal Power Act

source source History View New Pages Recent Changes All Special Pages Semantic Search/Querying Get Involved Help Apps Datasets Community Login | Sign Up Search Page Edit History Facebook icon Twitter icon Â» Colorado/Transmission/Regulatory Overview < Coloradoâ | Transmission Jump to: navigation, search Colorado Transmission Transmission Regulatory Overview Roadmap State Data Regulatory Overview General Transmission Permitting at a Glance In Colorado, local governments (counties and municipalities) have the authority to site high-voltage transmission lines. The State's authority in siting is limited to a backstop appeal process, by which utilities may submit an appeal to local government decisions to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for review and resolution.

Mason Emnett Mason Emnett Office of Energy Policy and Innovation Jonathan First Office of the General Counsel February 6, 2013 NOTE: Comments herein do not represent the views of the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission or its Commissioners Regulatory Considerations for Developing Generation Projects on Federal Lands 2 Purpose of this Presentation * Describe the types of transactions that fall under FERC jurisdiction * Describe pertinent federal laws and how they apply - What does it mean to be a "public utility" or "transmitting utility" under federal law? - How does ownership and usage of a generation facility impact regulatory considerations? - When are parties required to register with NERC? 3 FERC-Related Statutes * Federal Power Act

This compilation consists of bibliographic data and abstracts for the formal regulatory and technical reports issued by the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) Staff and its contractors. This compilation is published quarterly and cummulated annually. Reports consist of staff-originated reports, NRC-sponsored conference reports, NRC contractor-prepared reports, and international agreement reports.

This presentation covers the process of commissioning a new 150,000 sq. ft. research facility at Sandia National Laboratories. The laboratory being constructed is a showcase of modern design methods being built at a construction cost of less than $180 per sq. ft. This is possible in part because of the total commissioning activities that are being utilized for this project. The laboratory's unique approach to commissioning will be presented in this paper. The process will be followed through from the conceptual stage on into the actual construction portion of the laboratory. Lessons learned and cost effectiveness will be presented in a manner that will be usable for others making commissioning related decisions. Commissioning activities at every stage of the design will be presented along with the attributed benefits. Attendees will hear answers to the what, when, who, and why questions associated with commissioning of this exciting project.

On July, 1993, a Regulatory Oversight (RO) organization was established within the US DOE, Oak Ridge Operations to provide regulatory oversight of the DOE uranium enrichment facilities leased to the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC). The purpose of the OR program was to ensure continued plant safety, safeguards and security while the plants were transitioned to regulatory oversight by the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC). Volume 2 contains copies of the documents which established the relationship between NRC, DOE, USEC, and DOL (Dept of Labor) required to facilitate regulatory oversight transition.

The ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will face the challenge of efficiently selecting interesting candidate events in $pp$ collisions at 14 TeV centre-of-mass energy, whilst rejecting the enormous number of background events. Therefore it is equipped with a three level trigger system. The first level is is hardware based and uses coarse granularity calorimeter information and fast readout muon chambers. The second and third level triggers, which are software based, will need to reduce the first level trigger output rate of ~ 75 kHz to ~ 200 Hz written out to mass storage. The progress in commissioning of this system will be reviewed in this paper.

' ' ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Frank K. Pittman, Director, bivisioa of Waste &&gement and s- portation, Headquarters j CONTAMItUTED RX-AEC-OWNED OR LEASED FACILITIES' This memorandum responds to your TWX certain information on the above subject. the documentation necessary to answer your available due to the records disposal vailing at the time of release or From records that are available and from disc&ions with most familiar with the transfer operations, &have the current radiological conditibn of transferred property is adequate under present standards. The following tabulations follow the format suggested in your TWX and are grouped to an operations or contract r+ponsibility. A,I Ex-AEC Storage Sites - I r:/ National Stockpile Site '(NSS) and OperatEonal

Commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal in the United States is regulated by the US Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) under 10 CFR 61 (1991). This regulation was issued in 1981 after a lengthy and thorough development process that considered the radionuclide concentrations and characteristics associated with commercial low-level radioactive waste streams; alternatives for waste classification; alternative technologies for low-level radioactive waste disposal; and data, modeling, and scenario analyses. The development process also included the publication of both draft and final environmental impact statements. The final regulation describes the general provisions; licenses; performance objectives; technical requirements for land disposal; financial assurances; participation by state governments and Indian tribes; and records, reports, tests, and inspections. This paper provides an overview of, and tutorial on, current commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal regulations in the United States.

On the Accuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimates On the Accuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimates Speaker(s): Richard Morgenstern Date: December 10, 2013 - 12:00pm - 1:00pm Location: 90-3122 Seminar Host/Point of Contact: Alan Sanstad Margaret Taylor Over the past several decades, the U.S. has seen a gradual reduction in economic regulation and a simultaneous increase in safety, health, environmental, and other social regulations. Especially with the prospect of regulation on greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, there is growing concern about the costs, effectiveness, and benefits of federal rules. While prospective or ex ante analyses of the benefits and costs of major federal regulations are now a standard part of government operations, retrospective or ex post analyses, focusing on measurements of actual

This paper is an interview with a representative of a local natural gas distribution company, giving his opinion of the economic effects of the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission's (FERC) Order 636. This regulation provides that all natural gas, pipelines, and local gas distribution companies (LDC's) contract and manage their own supply and demand sales and purchases. The goal of the legislation was to provide a stable natural gas market which would allow for long term contract sales of natural gas. This paper discusses the economic and business impacts this regulation will have on LDC's which use to spot market purchase the majority of their gas from lowest price suppliers. The end result of this regulation would reduce the available of easily accessible spot market gas and require LCD's to begin negotiating their own contracts.

Texas Texas State Regulations: Texas State of Texas The Railroad Commission of Texas (RCC), through the Oil and Gas Division, administers oil and gas exploration, development, and production operations, except for oil and gas leasing, royalty payments, surface damages through oil and gas operations, and operator-landowner contracts. The RCC and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), formerly, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding clarifying jurisdiction over oil field wastes generated in connection with oil and gas exploration, development, and production. The RCC Oil and Gas Division operates nine district offices, each staffed with field enforcement and support personnel.

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

President Carter issued Executive Order 12044 (3/28/78) that required all Federal agencies to distinguish between significant and insignificant regulations, and to determine whether a regulation will result in major impacts. This study gathered information on the impact of the order and the guidelines on the Office of Conservation and Solar Energy (CS) regulatory practices, investigated problems encountered by the CS staff when implementing the order and guidelines, and recommended solutions to resolve these problems. Major tasks accomplished and discussed are: (1) legislation, Executive Orders, and DOE Memoranda concerning Federal administrative procedures relevant to the development and analysis of regulations within CS reviewed; (2) relevant DOE Orders and Memoranda analyzed and key DOE and CS staff interviewed in order to accurately describe the current CS regulatory process; (3) DOE staff from the Office of the General Counsel, the Office of Policy and Evaluation, the Office of the Environment, and the Office of the Secretary interviewed to explore issues and problems encountered with current CS regulatory practices; (4) the regulatory processes at five other Federal agencies reviewed in order to see how other agencies have approached the regulatory process, dealt with specific regulatory problems, and responded to the Executive Order; and (5) based on the results of the preceding four tasks, recommendations for potential solutions to the CS regulatory problems developed. (MCW)

During the site closure of nuclear facilities where both radionuclides and chemicals are present in environmental media, state and federal regulatory agencies other than the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission often have a stake in the regulation of the site closure process. At the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) Haddam Neck Plant in Haddam, Connecticut, the site closure process includes both radiological and chemical cleanup which is regulated by two separate divisions within the state and two federal agencies. Each of the regulatory agencies has unique closure criteria which pertain to radionuclides and, consequently, there is overlapping and in some cases disparate regulation of radionuclides. Considerable effort has been expended by CYAPCO to find common ground in meeting the site closure requirements for radionuclides required by each of the agencies. This paper discusses the approaches that have been used by CYAPCO to address radionuclide site closure requirements. Significant lessons learned from these approaches include the demonstration that public health cleanup criteria for most radionuclides of concern at nuclear power generation facilities are protective for chemical toxicity concerns and are protective for ecological receptors and, consequently, performing a baseline ecological risk assessment for radionuclides at power generation facilities is not generally necessary. (authors)

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) has received and is reviewing three applications for early site permits (ESPs). The ESP process allows early resolution of site-related issues affecting possible construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant. The nuclear industry views a successful and predictable ESP process as an important step in assessing whether to seek authorization to construct and operate a new generation of nuclear power reactors in the United States. Because consideration of ESP applications is a first-of-a-kind activity, a number of issues have emerged prior to and during the reviews of the first three applications. Issues have included the need for design information at the ESP stage, accident analyses, quality assurance, and seismic analyses. The NRC has been working to resolve identified issues to support a Commission decision on whether to issue an ESP approximately 33-37 months after receipt of each ESP application. (authors)

Building Commissioning has a broad scope that extends to all phases of building delivery. We view commissioning as a building delivery embedded process that persistently verifies and validates design intent throughout the building lifecycle process. In the building lifecycle approach, buildings are considered to have cradle-to-grave life spans. They are modeled through a variety of different developmental phases. In this research project, we intend to build the necessary theory and tools to support the embedded commissioning process as a co-function of building lifecycle.

Types of Commissioning Types of Commissioning Types of Commissioning October 7, 2013 - 9:17am Addthis Several commissioning types exist to address the specific needs of equipment and systems across both new and existing buildings. The following commissioning types provide a good overview. New Building Commissioning New building commissioning happens during the design and construction of new facilities. The process ensures that systems and equipment in new buildings operate properly. This is done through design reviews, functional testing, system documentation, and operator training. Federal agencies should consider new building commissioning when building new facilities or undergoing major facility renovations. The process is best implemented through all phases of construction.

: Experimental and Numerical Studies in Gas Turbine Heat Transfer Â­ Funding support from the Department of Energy and Numerical Studies in Gas Turbine Heat Transfer Â­ Funding support from the Department of Energy, the National RegulatoryCommission Faculty Development Grant for new faculty start-up funds o initiated a series

leg_reg.gif (4810 bytes) leg_reg.gif (4810 bytes) Introduction Because analyses by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) are required to be policy-neutral, the projections in this Annual Energy Outlook 1999 (AEO99) are based on Federal, State, and local laws and regulations in effect on July 1, 1998. The potential impacts of pending or proposed legislation and sections of existing legislation for which funds have not been appropriated are not reflected in the projections. Federal legislation incorporated in the projections includes the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which adds 4.3 cents per gallon to the Federal tax on highway fuels [1]; the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987; the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA90); the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT); the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995; and the Tax Payer Relief Act of 1997. AEO99 also incorporates regulatory actions of the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC), including Orders 888 and 889, which provide open access to interstate transmission lines in electricity markets, and other FERC actions to foster more efficient natural gas markets. State plans for the restructuring of the electricity industry and State renewable portfolio standards are incorporated as enacted.

and Wildlife), Blaine Parker (Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission) and Brad James (Washington and on sturgeon passage at Columbia River hydroelectric dams. The presentation will review progress

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

The University of Wisconsin has completed fabrication and commissioning of a low frequency (199.6 MHz) superconducting electron gun based on a quarter wave resonator (QWR) cavity. Its concept was optimized to be the source for a CW free electron laser facility. The gun design includes active tuning and a high temperature superconducting solenoid. We will report on the status of the Wisconsin SRF electron gun program, including commissioning experience and first beam measurements.

This paper describes the implementation and commissioning of a device based on a new concept for measurements of nuclear reactions in inverse kinematics. The HELIcal Orbit Spectrometer, HELIOS, was commissioned at Argonne National Laboratory by studying the {sup 28}Si(d,p){sup 29}Si reaction in inverse kinematics. This experiment served as a proof of principle for this previously untested concept, and was used to verify the response and performance characteristics of HELIOS.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION June 2013 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION June 2013 Revision 2 REGULATORY GUIDE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH Written suggestions regarding this guide or development of new guides may be submitted through the NRC's public Web site under the Regulatory Guides document collection of the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/contactus.html. Electronic copies of this regulatory guide, previous versions of this guide, and other recently issued guides are available through the NRC's public Web site under the Regulatory Guides document collection of the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/. The regulatory guide is also available through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at

The Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project Regulatory Gap Analysis (RGA) for High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors (HTGR) was conducted to evaluate existing regulatory requirements and guidance against the design characteristics specific to a generic modular HTGR. This final report presents results and identifies regulatory gaps concerning current Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) licensing requirements that apply to the modular HTGR design concept. This report contains appendices that highlight important HTGR licensing issues that were found during the RGA study. The information contained in this report will be used to further efforts in reconciling HTGR-related gaps in the NRC licensing structure, which has to date largely focused on light water reactor technology.

Summary Report on Industrial and Regulatory Engagement Activities Summary Report on Industrial and Regulatory Engagement Activities Summary Report on Industrial and Regulatory Engagement Activities The Advanced Instrumentation, Information, and Control (II&C) Systems Technologies pathway of the Light Water Reactor Sustainability(LWRS) Program conducts a vigorous engagement strategy with the U.S. nuclear power industry, including the nuclear operating companies, major support organizations, the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC), and suppliers. The goal of this engagement strategy is to develop a shared vision and common understanding across the nuclear industry of the need for II&C modernization, the performance improvement that can be obtained, and the opportunities for collaboration to enact this vision. The primary means of engaging the nuclear operating companies is through a

This compilation consists of bibliographic data and abstracts for the formal regulatory and technical reports issued by the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) Staff and its contractors. It is NRC`s intention to publish this compilation quarterly and to cumulate it annually.

The key to success in designing effective incentive regulation is relatively simple: Anticipate all of the incentives that will ultimately come to bear, and structure regulatory policy in advance to limit any adverse incentives. All is a critical word here. Attention commonly is focused on the incentives a proposed regulatory plan creates for the regulated firm to minimize production costs, diversify into new markets, and so on. While the incentives are important in assessing a regulatory plan, they are only one consideration. It is also critical to analyze the incentives the plan creates for other key players in the regulatory arena, particularly regulators. It is premature to draw any broad conclusions about the success of incentive regulation in the electric power and natural gas industries. While there is reason for optimism, concern remain. Some incentive regulation plans have been abandoned, in part because of: (1) unforeseen exogenous event that could not be administered within the confines of the plan; (2) public opposition to rewarding a utility for the superior performance it should have realized without the promise of financial reward; (3) adverse reaction to utility earnings in excess of those commonly authorized under traditional regulation, and (4) questions about the legality of the plans under state statutes.

The discussion in this Chapter is a relatively straightforward, chronological description of the development of U.S. transportation regulations for radioactive materials over the past 40 years. Although primarily based on the development of U.S. regulations for the shipment of what is now known as Type B quantities of radioactive materials, the information presented details the interactions between a number of U.S. governmental agencies, commissions, and departments, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). For the most part, the information that follows was taken directly from the Federal Register, between 1965 and 2004, which, within the boundaries of the U.S., is considered law, or at least policy at the federal level. Starting in 1978, however, the information presented also takes a look at a series of so-called Guidance Documents, including Regulatory Guides (Reg. Guides), NUREGs, and NUREG/CRs. Developed originally by the U.S. Atomic Energy Agency (AEC), and later adapted by the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC), the NUREGs and NUREG/CRs cited in this Chapter clearly specify a preferred methodology that can be used to meet the regulatory requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 71 (10 CFR Part 71, or, more simply, 10 CFR 71). As is appropriate for the discussion in this Chapter, the methodology preferred by the NRC, not as law but as guidance, was adapted directly from the requirements of the ASME's Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code. The information provided below is provided with little embellishment. By taking the information directly from the Federal Register, it becomes a story that tells itself. The information is self-consistent, and it provides all of the details behind the numerous policy decisions that led to the development of the U.S. regulations, as they were in their time, and as they are now.

After many years of operation as government-owned/contractor-operated facilities, large portions of the gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs) at Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, were leased to the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC). These facilities are now certified by the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) and subject to oversight by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The transition from DOE to NRC regulation was more difficult than expected. The original commitment was to achieve NRC certification in October 1995; however, considerably more time was required and transition-related costs escalated. The Oak Ridge Operations Office originally estimated the cost of transition at $60 million; $240 million has been spent to date. The DOE`s experience in transitioning the GDPs to USEC operation with NRC oversight provides valuable lessons (both positive and negative) that could be applied to future transitions.

What's Up with the California Commissioning Collaborative? What's Up with the California Commissioning Collaborative? Speaker(s): Kristin Heinemeier Date: July 8, 2005 - 12:00pm Location: Bldg. 90 The California Commissioning Collaborative's objectives are: --to improve building performance by developing and promoting viable building commissioning practices in California; --to facilitate the development of cost effective programs, tools, techniques and service delivery infrastructure to enable the implementation of building commissioning processes; --to educate and inform concerning building commissioning processes; and --to identify opportunities, establish priorities and promote solutions relating to building commissioning processes in California. Find out about who the CCC is, and their latest activities,

The International Energy Agency ECBCS Annex 40 Commissioning of Buildings and HVAC Systems for Improved Energy Performance task investigating Use of Whole Building Simulation in Commissioning has identified the following applications of whole simulation in the commissioning process: 1) during the design process; 2) in post-construction commissioning of new buildings; 3) design simulation for ongoing commissioning; 4) calibrated simulation for retro commissioning; 5) calibrated simulation for on-going commissioning; and 6) simulation to evaluate new control code. These applications are discussed and examples of each of these applications are provided. The only one of these which has been applied in routine commissioning projects is the use of calibrated simulation for retro commissioning. The other examples have been applied in a research setting, and costs must be lowered for routine application, but there appears to be potential for significant application of simulation in the commissioning process.

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

This document is the first of two volumes compiling statutes and material pertaining to nuclear regulatory legislation through the 104th Congress, 2nd Session. It is intended for use as a U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) internal resource document. Legislative information reproduced in this document includes portions of the Atomic Energy Act, Energy Reorganization Act, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act, and Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Other information included in this volume pertains to NRC user fees, NRC authorizations, the Inspector General Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

This progress report describes current activities and technical progress in the programs at Brookhaven National Laboratory sponsored by the Division of Regulatory Applications, Division of Engineering, Division of Safety Issue Resolution, and Division of Systems Research of the US Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research following the reorganization in July 1988. The previous reports have covered the period October 1, 1976 through December 31, 1988.

AND AND FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORYCOMMISSION Emergency Petition and Complaint of ) Docket No. EL05-145-000 District of Columbia Public Service ) Commission ) EMERGENCY PETITION AND COMPLAINT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Pursuant to Sections 202(c), 207 and 309 of the Federal Power Act ("FPA"), 16 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 824a(c), 824f and 825h, the District of Columbia Public Service Commission ("DCPSC") hereby submits this Emergency Petition and Complaint to avert the impending shutdown of the Potomac River Generating Station power plant ("Potomac River Plant" or "Plant") owned and operated by Mirant Corporation and its public utility subsidiaries (collectively, "Mirant") in Alexandria, Virginia.

This compilation includes in the first two sections the reporting and recordkeeping requirements applicable to US Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) licensees and applicants and to members of the public. It includes those requirements codified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, on December 31, 1991. It also includes, in a separate section, any of those requirements that were superseded or discontinued from January through December 1991. Finally, the appendix lists mailing and delivery addresses for NRC Headquarters and Regional Offices mentioned in the compilation.

The status of the commissioning of the ATLAS experiment as of May 2008 is presented. The sub-detector integration in recent milestone weeks is described. Cosmic commissioning in milestone week M6 included simultaneous data-taking and combined track analysis of the muon detector and inner detector, as well as combined analysis of muon detector and muon trigger. The calorimeters have achieved near-full operation, and are integrated with the calorimeter trigger. The high-level-trigger infrastructure is being installed and algorithms tested in technical runs.

The introduction of retail wheeling is changing the roles of regulators and the courts. When states unbundle the vertically integrated investor-owned utility (IOU) into generation companies, transmission companies, and distribution companies, antitrust enforcement and policy setting by the state public utility/service commissions (PUCs) will be paramount. As was seen in the deregulation of the airline industry, vigorous enforcement of antitrust laws by the courts and proper policy setting by the regulators are the keys to a successful competitive market. Many of the problems raised in the airline deregulation movement came about due to laxity in correcting clear antitrust violations and anti-competitive conditions before they caused damage to the market. As retail wheeling rolls out, it is critical for state PUCs to become attuned to these issues and, most of all, to have staff trained in these disciplines. The advent of retail wheeling changes the application of the State Action Doctrine and, in turn, may dramatically alter the role of the state PUC--meaning antitrust law and regulatory oversight must step in to protect competitors and consumers from monopolistic abuse.

Hexavalent chromium, Cr(VI), acts as a chemical driver for many human health risk assessments under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and other regulatory programs across a range of industrial sectors, including the electric power sector. To characterize and manage the health and environmental risk related to toxics, agencies and the regulated sectors must rely on the development of scientific estimates of the exposure-to-response relationship to understand and quantify the potential hazard ...

efficiency small engined cars, hybrid cars, biofuels and a significant switch to public transport. Tough) and to diesel and biofuels for cars. It is the aim of the European Commission that the EU ETS scheme under stable market conditions. Current volatility in wholesale electricity markets works against

RegTransBase, a manually curated database of regulatory interactions in prokaryotes, captures the knowledge in published scientific literature using a controlled vocabulary. RegTransBase describes a large number of regulatory interactions reported in many organisms and contains various types of experimental data, in particular: the activation or repression of transcription by an identified direct regulator determining the transcriptional regulatory function of a protein (or RNA) directly binding to DNA or RNA mapping or prediction of binding sites for a regulatory protein characterization of regulatory mutations Currently, the RegTransBase content is derived from about 3000 relevant articles describing over 7000 experiments in relation to 128 microbes. It contains data on the regulation of about 7500 genes and evidence for 6500 interactions with 650 regulators. RegTransBase also contains manually created position weight matrices (PWM) that can be used to identify candidate regulatory sites in over 60 species. (Specialized Interface)

This report proposes an acceptable methodology to apply to safety-related instrumentation to demonstrate 95% probability and 95% confidence (95/95) uncertainties in support of the requirements of Nuclear RegulatoryCommissionRegulatory Guide (RG) 1.105 Revision 3. This methodology should serve as a means to specify testing and analysis requirements to instrumentation manufacturers and suppliers for their use in meeting the RG 1.105 Revision 3 95% probability and 95% confidence requirements. A ...

This report provides unit dose to concentration levels that may be used to develop control criteria for radionuclide activity in hazardous waste; if implemented, these criteria would be developed to provide an adequate level of public and worker health protection, for wastes regulated under U.S, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements (as derived from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] and/or the Toxic Substances Control Act [TSCA]). Thus, DOE and the US Nuclear RegulatoryCommission can fulfill their obligation to protect the public from radiation by ensuring that such wastes are appropriately managed, while simultaneously reducing the current level of dual regulation. In terms of health protection, dual regulation of very small quantities of radionuclides provides no benefit.

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

An Illinois Commerce Commission economist warns that regulators should be cautious about adopting incentive regulations, which are risky to consumers because of the inaccurate cost-efficiency measurement, faulty program design, and difficulties in program evaluation. The biggest problem with existing incentive programs is that they don't always produce lower rates in the long term. Properly designed and implemented, however, the programs can benefit both ratepayers and utilities. Programs which penalize bad performance without rewarding the good can cause problems. The authors outlines common characteristics of the program and recommends several incentive options.

The electric power system must address two unique requirements: the need to maintain a near real-time balance between generation and load, and the need to adjust generation (or load) to manage power flows through individual transmission facilities. These requirements are not new: vertically integrated utilities have been meeting them for a century as a normal part of conducting business. With restructuring, however, the services needed to meet these requirements, now called ''ancillary services'', are being more clearly defined. Ancillary services are those functions performed by the equipment and people that generate, control, and transmit electricity in support of the basic services of generating capacity, energy supply, and power delivery. The Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC) has defined such services as those ''necessary to support the transmission of electric power from seller to purchaser given the obligations of control areas and transmitting utilities within those control areas to maintain reliable operations of the interconnected transmission system''. This statement recognizes the importance of ancillary services for both bulk-power reliability and support of commercial transactions. Balancing generation and load instantaneously and continuously is difficult because loads and generators are constantly fluctuating. Minute-to-minute load variability results from the random turning on and off of millions of individual loads. Longer-term variability results from predictable factors such as the daily and seasonal load patterns as well as more random events like shifting weather patterns. Generators also introduce unexpected fluctuations because they do not follow their generation schedules exactly and they trip unexpectedly due to a range of equipment failures. The output from wind generators varies with the wind. Storage technologies should be ideal suppliers of several ancillary services, including regulation, contingency reserves (spinning reserve, supplemental reserve, replacement reserve), and voltage support. These services are not free; in regions with energy markets, generators are paid to supply these services. In vertically integrated utilities (without energy markets) the utility incurs significant costs to supply these services. Supplying these services may be a significant business opportunity for emerging storage technologies. This report briefly explores the various ancillary services that may be of interest to storage. It then focuses on regulation, the most expensive ancillary service. It also examines the impact that increasing amounts of wind generation may have on regulation requirements, decreasing conventional regulation supplies, and the implications for energy storage.

47328 47328 Vol. 77, No. 153 Wednesday, August 8, 2012 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 5 CFR Chapter XXII 10 CFR Chapters II, III, X Reducing Regulatory Burden AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy. ACTION: Request for information. SUMMARY: As part of its implementation of Executive Order 13563, ''Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' issued by the President on January 18, 2011, the Department of Energy (Department or DOE) is seeking comments and information from interested parties to assist DOE in reviewing its existing regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed. The purpose of DOE's review is to make the agency's regulatory program more effective and less burdensome in achieving its

The effects of fuel regulations, environmental protection laws, the National Environmental Policy Act, underground injection regulations, and state regulations on the development of compressed air storage systems and power plants are discussed. It is concluded that environmental regulatory concerns of conventional energy technologies are often different from those associated with new technologies such as compressed air energy storage (CAES). Confusion and uncertainty often results when the current environmental regulatory system is applied to new technologies. Evolution of the regulatory system must accompany and rapidly accommodate technological development if the benefits of such development are to be fully realized in a timely manner. Those responsible for technological development in the energy field must be aware of these disparities and conduct their efforts accordingly.

Reply Comments on Reducing Regulatory Burden Reply Comments on Reducing Regulatory Burden DOE Seeks Reply Comments on Reducing Regulatory Burden March 22, 2011 - 5:24pm Addthis The Department of Energy today announces the opening of the reply comment period for its Request for Information implementing Executive Order 13563, seeking public comment on how best to review its existing regulations and to identify whether any of its existing regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed. The Department is now interested in receiving comment on the suggestions and comments received from outside parties. Those comments and suggestions are posted on the Office of the General Counsel website: Retrospective Review of Regulations. On January 31, 2011, the Department took two steps to launch its

CDF II is one of the two large collider experiments at Fermilab's Tevatron. Over the past two years we have commissioned the offline computing system. A task that has involved bringing up hundreds of computers and millions of lines of C++ software. This paper reports on this experience, concentrating on the software aspects of the project. We will highlight some of the successes as well as describe some of the work still to do.

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

As described in this report, the past year has seen several significant developments in the field of oil pipeline regulation. Foremost among those developments was the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 which, among other things, requires substantial reforms in the way that the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC) regulates oil pipelines. Other 1992 legislative developments include the amendment and reauthorization of the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 (HLPSA). The amendments, implemented pursuant to the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992, impose additional pipeline inspection and reporting duties upon the Department of Transportation (DOT). On the administrative front, the FERC issued its Policy Statement on Incentive Regulation, which establishes an alternative to the traditional cost of service approach to setting rates for oil pipelines, as well as for natural gas pipelines and electric utilities that have market power. Finally, in two cases, Bonito Pipe Line Co. and Oxy Interstate Commerce Act (ICA) over oil pipelines operating on the outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

This article takes a brief look at the benefits of commissioning and describes a vision of the future where most of the objectives of commissioning will be accomplished automatically by capabilities built into the building systems themselves. Commissioning will become an activity that's performed continuously rather than periodically, and only repairs requiring replacement or overhaul of equipment will require manual intervention. The article then identifies some of the technologies that will be needed to realize this vision and ends with a call for all involved in the enterprise of building commissioning and automation to embrace and dedicate themselves to a future of automated commissioning.

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) is considering renewal of the operating licenses for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (HNP) for a period of an additional 20 years. The purpose of this assessment is to provide information to the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service concerning the impacts of continued operation of the HNP on the shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum. The

In late 1989 two reports on incentive regulation were prepared by the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC). Prepared under the auspices of the Office of Economic Policy, one report supports giving natural gas pipelines more flexibility in pricing their services and in levels of profitability, while the other supports the same approach for natural gas pipelines and wholesale electric suppliers. Thus far, FERC has used the reports for discussion purposes only and is not expected to rely on them in the foreseeable future to initiate a notice of proposed rulemaking or in any other formal way. The significance of the reports lies in their thorough and analytical overview of different incentive systems. Such incentive systems likely will be proposed before state public utility commissions over the next several years. The FERC reports help to crystalize the major issues, thereby facilitating states' efforts to determine the acceptibility of proposed incentive systems. The incentive systems discussed in the FERC reports are transferable to retail markets falling under the jurisdiction of state commissions, and can be applied at the state level either in part or in whole. 36 refs., 1 fig., 5 tabs.

China) China) Jump to: navigation, search Name National Energy Commission (China) Place Beijing References National Energy Commission (China)[1] No information has been entered for this organization. Add Organization This article is a stub. You can help OpenEI by expanding it. National Energy Commission (China) is a new, high level, 21 member interagency commission based in Beijing, China, and is responsible for China's new energy law (expected 1/1/2011). [2] National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Environmental Protection (China) See also Government_policy_and_investment_in_clean_energy_(China) Key Facts Members Li Junfeng, National Development and Reform Commission ____, People's Liberation Army References â "National Energy Commission (China)"

On July, 1993, a Regulatory Oversight (RO) organization was established within the US DOE, Oak Ridge Operations (ORO) to provide regulatory oversight of the DOE uranium enrichment facilities leased to the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC). The purpose of the OR program was to ensure continued plant safety, safeguards and security while the plants were transitioned to regulatory oversight by the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC). Volume 3 contains copies of two reports that document the DOE/ORO regulatory oversight inspection and enforcement history for each gaseous diffusion plant site. Each report provides a formal mechanism by which DOE/ORO could communicate the inspection and enforcement history to NRC. The reports encompass the inspection activities that occurred during July 1, 1993 through March 2, 1997.

Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) as Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) as Applicable to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) - List of Covered Electric Utilities. Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) as Applicable to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) - List of Covered Electric Utilities. Under Title I of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is required to publish a list identifying each electric utility that Title I applies to. [See PURPA SEC. 102(c).] The following list is being released by DOE in August 2006 for review and comment by state public utility commissions. Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) as Applicable to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) - List of Covered Electric

Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) as Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) as Applicable to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) -List of Covered Electric Utilities - 2006 Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) as Applicable to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) -List of Covered Electric Utilities - 2006 Under Title I of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is required to publish a list identifying each electric utility that Title I applies to. [See PURPA SEC. 102(c).] The following list is being released by DOE in August 2006 for review and comment by state public utility commissions. Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) as Applicable to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) - List of Covered Electric

Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited (AECL) and its subsidiary in the US, are considering submitting the CANDU 3 design for standard design certification under 10 CFR Part 52. CANDU reactors are pressurized heavy water power reactors. They have some substantially different safety responses and safety systems than the LWRs that the commercial power reactor licensing regulations of the US Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) have been developed to deal with. In this report, the authors discuss the basic design characteristics of CANDU reactors, specifically of the CANDU 3 where possible, and some safety-related consequences of these characteristics. The authors also discuss the Canadian regulatory provisions, and the CANDU safety systems that have evolved to satisfy the Canadian regulatory requirements as of December 1992. Finally, the authors identify NRC regulations, mainly in 10 CFR Parts 50 and 100, with issues for CANDU 3 reactor designs. In all, eleven such regulatory issues are identified. They are: (1) the ATWS rule ({section}50.62); (2) station blackout ({section}50.63); (3) conformance with Standard Review Plan (SRP); (4) appropriateness of the source term ({section}50.34(f) and {section}100.11); (5) applicability of reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) requirements ({section}50.55a, etc); (6) ECCS acceptance criteria ({section}50.46)(b); (7) combustible gas control ({section}50.44, etc); (8) power coefficient of reactivity (GDC 11); (9) seismic design (Part 100); (10) environmental impacts of the fuel cycle ({section}51.51); and (11) (standards {section}50.55a).

This report, the ninth in a series of annual reports, was prepared in response to congressional inquiries concerning how nuclear regulatory research is used. It summarizes the accomplishments of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research during FY 1993. A special emphasis on accomplishments in nuclear power plant aging research reflects recognition that number of plants are entering the final portion of their original 40-year operating licenses and that, in addition to current aging effects, a focus on safety considerations for license renewal becomes timely. The primary purpose of performing regulatory research is to develop and provide the Commission and its staff with sound technical bases for regulatory decisions on the safe operation of licensed nuclear reactors and facilities, to find unknown or unexpected safety problems, and to develop data and related information for the purpose of revising the Commission`s rules, regulatory guides, or other guidance.

Sample records for regulatory commission regulates from the National Library of Energy Beta (NLEBeta)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "regulatory commission regulates" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.

The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) has received two petitions to amend its regulations in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 35 as they apply to doses received by members of the public exposed to patients released from a hospital after they have been administered radioactive material. While the two petitions are not identical they both request that the NRC establish a dose limit of 5 millisieverts (0.5 rem) per year for individuals exposed to patients who have been administered radioactive materials. This Regulatory Analysis evaluates three alternatives. Alternative 1 is for the NRC to amend its patient release criteria in 10 CFR 35.75 to use the more stringent dose limit of 1 millisievert per year in 10 CFR 20.1301(a) for its patient release criteria. Alternative 2 is for the NRC to continue using the existing patient release criteria in 10 CFR 35.75 of 1,110 megabecquerels of activity or a dose rate at one meter from the patient of 0.05 millisievert per hour. Alternative 3 is for the NRC to amend the patient release criteria in 10 CFR 35.75 to specify a dose limit of 5 millisieverts for patient release. The evaluation indicates that Alternative 1 would cause a prohibitively large increase in the national health care cost from retaining patients in a hospital longer and would cause significant personal and psychological costs to patients and their families. The choice of Alternatives 2 or 3 would affect only thyroid cancer patients treated with iodine-131. For those patients, Alternative 3 would result in less hospitalization than Alternative 2. Alternative 3 has a potential decrease in national health care cost of $30,000,000 per year but would increase the potential collective dose from released therapy patients by about 2,700 person-rem per year, mainly to family members.

Regulatory Drivers Regulatory Drivers Several legislative acts are in place that could potentially impact water quality requirements and water use for fossil energy production as well as electricity generation. These acts regulate pollutant discharge and water intake directly and indirectly. Under regulations established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), these Acts serve to maintain and improve the Nation's water resources for uses including but not limited to agricultural, industrial, nutritional, and recreational purposes. The Clean Water Act - The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, more commonly known as the Clean Water Act, provides for the regulation of discharges to the nation's surface waters. To address pollution, the act specifies that the discharge of any pollutant by any person is unlawful except when in compliance with applicable permitting requirements. Initial emphasis was placed on "point source" pollutant discharge, but 1987 amendments authorized measures to address "non-point source" discharges, including stormwater runoff from industrial facilities. Permits are issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which designates the highest level of water pollution or lowest acceptable standards for water discharges. NPDES permits are typically administered by the individual states. With EPA approval, the states may implement standards more stringent than federal water quality standards, but may not be less stringent. Certain sections of the Act are particularly applicable to water issues related to power generation. These include:

Recently, many industrial, regulatory, and community leaders have expressed concern that the current environmental regulatory structure disregards multimedia environmental impacts, provides few incentives to develop and use new technologies, and fails to consider site-specific conditions. For the US petroleum refining industry, faced with the need to produce higher-quality fuels from poorer-quality feedstocks, such criticisms are expected to increase. This article offers two alternative environmental regulatory approaches for existing petroleum refineries to use in the future. These alternative approaches are multimedia in scope, provide for new technology development and use, and allow flexibility in the means for meeting environmental goals. They have been reviewed and critiqued by various stakeholders, including industry representatives, regulators, and local and national community and environmental organizations. The integration of stakeholder comments and findings of ongoing national and international regulatory reinvention efforts in the development of these approaches positions them for potential use by other industries in addition to petroleum refineries.

The regulatory system is presented in a format to help guide geothermal energy development. State, local, and federal agencies, legislation, and regulations are presented. Information sources are listed. (MHR)

were the Human Resources Director of a major hotel and catering group, the Human Resources Policy Director (later promoted to Deputy Director-General) of the Confederation of British Industry, and the Chief Executive of a retailers federation... of the Commission, to the Inland Revenue which tackled the task with energy, imagination and common sense. The Government also simplified the Commissions task by prejudging certain aspects of the National Minimum Wage. Particularly important was that it should...

The Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) successfully met the primary construction project completion milestones in April 2006. An important ingredient of this successful commissioning was the development and use of software tools. With the increasing digitalization of beam diagnostics and increasing complexity of Integrated Control Systems of large accelerators, the need for high level software tools is critical for smooth commissioning. At SNS a special Java based infrastructure called XAL was prepared for beam commissioning. XAL provides a hierarchal view of the accelerator, is data base configured, and includes a physics model of the beam. This infrastructure and individual applications development along with a historical time line of the SNS commissioning will be discussed.

The commissioning of the Fenno-Skan HVDC link between Finland and Sweden, with the longest submarine dc cable in the world, is described. The main pre-commissioning activities, important for an efficient commissioning, are discussed together with time schedules and suitable organization forms. The procedures to test special control features, such as subsynchronous oscillation (SSO) damping control are presented. The full scale network interaction tests which are an important part of the commissioning are also discussed. These tests succeeded very well and provided a lot of information about the system behavior for future operation and planning purposes.